Cultural differences in conflict resolution
August 18, 2019 4:59 PM
Are there any cultures where telling someone that something they did or said bothered you would be unacceptable?
Here on Metafilter and in other thinky sorts of places, we often hear that:
(1) If something someone close to you did or said is bothering you, it can be a good idea to talk to them about it,
(2) Despite being difficult, there are ways to do (1) that can minimize the likelihood of damaging the relationship,
(3) There is an onus on the person hearing this feedback to not behave "defensively",
(4) It's often not appropriate for the person receiving this feedback to tell the teller that they're "too sensitive", even if they did not intend to hurt the teller in their original actions,
(5) Reactions like (3) and (4) are considered to be social mistakes on the part of the person hearing the feedback and can be indicative of poor emotional intelligence,
(6) Generally, you have an implicit responsibility to hear people out if they're close to you and you care about your relationship with them. You don't have to agree with them, but you are expected to control your responses to them.
For reasons I'd rather not get into here, I wonder if these are ideas that really only have traction in some Western, predominantly Caucasian, and college-educated communities (both Ask and Guess cultures). Does anyone have examples (either personal or with references) of cultures that don't operate this way?
Thanks for any insight you have into this - I know it's an awkward, controversial sort of question. If it matters at all, I'm asking this as a WOC.
Here on Metafilter and in other thinky sorts of places, we often hear that:
(1) If something someone close to you did or said is bothering you, it can be a good idea to talk to them about it,
(2) Despite being difficult, there are ways to do (1) that can minimize the likelihood of damaging the relationship,
(3) There is an onus on the person hearing this feedback to not behave "defensively",
(4) It's often not appropriate for the person receiving this feedback to tell the teller that they're "too sensitive", even if they did not intend to hurt the teller in their original actions,
(5) Reactions like (3) and (4) are considered to be social mistakes on the part of the person hearing the feedback and can be indicative of poor emotional intelligence,
(6) Generally, you have an implicit responsibility to hear people out if they're close to you and you care about your relationship with them. You don't have to agree with them, but you are expected to control your responses to them.
For reasons I'd rather not get into here, I wonder if these are ideas that really only have traction in some Western, predominantly Caucasian, and college-educated communities (both Ask and Guess cultures). Does anyone have examples (either personal or with references) of cultures that don't operate this way?
Thanks for any insight you have into this - I know it's an awkward, controversial sort of question. If it matters at all, I'm asking this as a WOC.
This is a super western way of framing conflict absolutely.
I have worked with a number of Japanese people, and also worked in Kenya for a time.
Japan has a concept called "kikubari", an imprecise translation means thinking of others, essentially. Expressing and prioritising your needs must be done in a much more circumspect way than we are generally used to in the West. Consensus is very important and expressions of opinion are often heavily qualified or caveated.
Kenyan societies tend to be heavily hierarchical compared to typical western societies, such that expressing displeasure like this to an inferior may be acceptable but to do so to superior world be unthinkable. Like Japan, I found that consensus and amiability is much more prioritised than individual needs.
Generally speaking, my experience has been that western cultures are more often the outliers.
posted by smoke at 5:56 PM on August 18, 2019
I have worked with a number of Japanese people, and also worked in Kenya for a time.
Japan has a concept called "kikubari", an imprecise translation means thinking of others, essentially. Expressing and prioritising your needs must be done in a much more circumspect way than we are generally used to in the West. Consensus is very important and expressions of opinion are often heavily qualified or caveated.
Kenyan societies tend to be heavily hierarchical compared to typical western societies, such that expressing displeasure like this to an inferior may be acceptable but to do so to superior world be unthinkable. Like Japan, I found that consensus and amiability is much more prioritised than individual needs.
Generally speaking, my experience has been that western cultures are more often the outliers.
posted by smoke at 5:56 PM on August 18, 2019
Living in China was very eye-opening to me in this regard. My polite, direct approach to conversations/problems was often not appreciated . . . although it took me longer than I'd like to admit to figure out why. The concept of saving face is incredibly important in China; directly confronting issues, rather than creating a scenario that allows the other person to deflect responsibility gracefully was considered both rude and boorish. It took me several years to get it right, but once I did, I saw my professional relationships improve in a major way.
posted by WaspEnterprises at 5:58 PM on August 18, 2019
posted by WaspEnterprises at 5:58 PM on August 18, 2019
Your scenario starts with "(1) If something someone close to you did or said is bothering you, it can be a good idea to talk to them about it" (in other words Ask them about it)
By contrast, the article linked below states, "In Guess Culture, you avoid putting a request into words unless you're pretty sure the answer will be yes."
This sort of conflict resolution difference is exactly the difference between Ask and Guess, and the linked article does generalize about countries; it labels Britain and Russia as Ask, and Japan as Guess.
posted by Former Congressional Representative Lenny Lemming at 6:00 PM on August 18, 2019
By contrast, the article linked below states, "In Guess Culture, you avoid putting a request into words unless you're pretty sure the answer will be yes."
This sort of conflict resolution difference is exactly the difference between Ask and Guess, and the linked article does generalize about countries; it labels Britain and Russia as Ask, and Japan as Guess.
posted by Former Congressional Representative Lenny Lemming at 6:00 PM on August 18, 2019
I think it completely depends on what the bothersome thing is. taken as abstract universal rules, I would have to disagree comprehensively with 3-5 and have some reservations about 6. These strike me as much more like work rules than intimate relations rules, and as an HR code of conduct I'd roll my eyes at it but have no problem with compliance. in an organic conversation with a human I knew well and cared for, no.
I think that in the irritating American mostly-white mostly-well-educated cultural niche I personally dwell in, the insistence that everything has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with details ruling supreme over general principles, is much more of a universal rule than any of these. I also find that in that cultural niche, both repression and conscious suppression of low-level bothered states are prized highly, and the habit of holding formal conversations about one's botheredness is deprecated. I appreciate and uphold these cultural values. with many exceptions, because the specifics matter more than anything.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:02 PM on August 18, 2019
I think that in the irritating American mostly-white mostly-well-educated cultural niche I personally dwell in, the insistence that everything has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with details ruling supreme over general principles, is much more of a universal rule than any of these. I also find that in that cultural niche, both repression and conscious suppression of low-level bothered states are prized highly, and the habit of holding formal conversations about one's botheredness is deprecated. I appreciate and uphold these cultural values. with many exceptions, because the specifics matter more than anything.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:02 PM on August 18, 2019
Yeah, the abstract universal rule layout was maybe not the best idea, but I was trying to break down the whole dynamic of "sometimes things go wrong in interpersonal relationships from one person's perspective but not the other's, and it can be okay for the wronged-feeling person to speak up".
I'm thinking about scenarios like dealing with a friend or relative, say, last-minute flaking out on plans or being bossy with you. So stuff that falls into that broader category of setting boundaries and respecting other people's boundaries, but I didn't want to use the term "boundaries" because that's not really a construct elsewhere. I'm not thinking of issues with expressing displeasure over stuff like when someone leaves their shoes on in your house or chews with their mouth open.
posted by blerghamot at 6:19 PM on August 18, 2019
I'm thinking about scenarios like dealing with a friend or relative, say, last-minute flaking out on plans or being bossy with you. So stuff that falls into that broader category of setting boundaries and respecting other people's boundaries, but I didn't want to use the term "boundaries" because that's not really a construct elsewhere. I'm not thinking of issues with expressing displeasure over stuff like when someone leaves their shoes on in your house or chews with their mouth open.
posted by blerghamot at 6:19 PM on August 18, 2019
Yup, lived in China for a while- conflict is definitely not handled that way there. I agree with the posters above who mentioned Japan (similar culturally to China in this respect) and China. My sense also of traveling in Asia/getting to know Asians as well as people from other countries, is that problems and conflicts are usually handled less directly outside of the Western world.
posted by bearette at 6:44 PM on August 18, 2019
posted by bearette at 6:44 PM on August 18, 2019
I think this is also fairly recent in white American communities. My immigrant and first-generation American relatives (Lithuanian) didn’t handle conflict this way at all. It was really just lots of screaming from both parties, with accusations of being too sensitive thrown at anyone who complained about hurt feelings. I remember my brother saying that the idea seemed to be that, since you knew you loved each other, you could say any horrible thing you wanted and it would be all right. My family is Catholic, and I’m wondering if this measured way of handling conflict you describe is a WASP thing. There are several million screen representations of white immigrant families, especially Italian Catholics, behaving as my family did. My generation (born 1950s) and our children are closer to what you describe.
Apologies if I’m misunderstanding the question.
posted by FencingGal at 6:57 PM on August 18, 2019
Apologies if I’m misunderstanding the question.
posted by FencingGal at 6:57 PM on August 18, 2019
FencingGal, you're right on target with what I was looking for.
This is my last thread-sit, but I'm particularly interested in immigrant communities in North America.
posted by blerghamot at 7:04 PM on August 18, 2019
This is my last thread-sit, but I'm particularly interested in immigrant communities in North America.
posted by blerghamot at 7:04 PM on August 18, 2019
My family is Catholic, and I’m wondering if this measured way of handling conflict you describe is a WASP thing.
It's not a WASP thing. The WASP - or British - thing to do would be to say nothing and seethe. And if you did say anything, you would be told you were being too sensitive, at least in working class WASP/Anglo contexts. Maybe you would complain to someone else later who would maybe try to broach it with the original person.
I think that culturally this comes from people going to therapy - and also people working in certain progressive contexts. It's more about recent social changes that may be more common in WEIRD (Western, etc,) countries, but it's not part of their traditional cultures.
posted by jb at 7:42 PM on August 18, 2019
It's not a WASP thing. The WASP - or British - thing to do would be to say nothing and seethe. And if you did say anything, you would be told you were being too sensitive, at least in working class WASP/Anglo contexts. Maybe you would complain to someone else later who would maybe try to broach it with the original person.
I think that culturally this comes from people going to therapy - and also people working in certain progressive contexts. It's more about recent social changes that may be more common in WEIRD (Western, etc,) countries, but it's not part of their traditional cultures.
posted by jb at 7:42 PM on August 18, 2019
Even as a white college-educated (upper)-middle-class person, this model of conflict is something I mostly read about on the internet and rarely encounter in the flesh.
I associate it with people who are very touchey-feely and who (frankly) can't be trusted.
posted by crazy with stars at 9:18 PM on August 18, 2019
I associate it with people who are very touchey-feely and who (frankly) can't be trusted.
posted by crazy with stars at 9:18 PM on August 18, 2019
I also read it as people who are manipulative and can’t be trusted. The way I see it, the crux of it is that Person A gets to air whatever grievance they have with you and say whatever they want but you’re not allowed to be offended or defend yourself because “they’re just being honest” and “you’re too sensitive.” I have a lot of experience with these kind of people. I’ve cut them out of my life now and things are great. If other cultures have a better way of approaching this sort of thing, I’d love to hear it!
posted by Jubey at 9:42 PM on August 18, 2019
posted by Jubey at 9:42 PM on August 18, 2019
This method is a last resort, in my experience; it's useful as an answer for people who have tried whatever is in their personal toolkit (avoidance, hinting, ignoring it) and are at the point that the issue is really hurting their relationship with someone. It's a "before you decide the relationship is done have you thought about trying this one neat trick?".
In my friendships, if you're sitting down to Have A Chat about the Friendship, you're doing this because option "never invite this person over again" was on the table and you wanted to give them another chance just in case they didn't realize how upset you were. It's a sign that you really value the friendship BECAUSE it's hard and unusual.
posted by Lady Li at 11:11 PM on August 18, 2019
In my friendships, if you're sitting down to Have A Chat about the Friendship, you're doing this because option "never invite this person over again" was on the table and you wanted to give them another chance just in case they didn't realize how upset you were. It's a sign that you really value the friendship BECAUSE it's hard and unusual.
posted by Lady Li at 11:11 PM on August 18, 2019
I think part of why it has reached such a level of popularity online is that it's difficult from the outside to give any other specific advice - we don't know who the peacemakers or influencers in your family are who might be able to go and plant a seed of change, we don't know details of your personal history and relationships, all the things you would need to know to indirectly solve a problem. It works across different micro-cultures.
A lot of those solutions also depend on the kind of time scale you're working on. If you feel like you need to get a response right away, you have to be more direct.
posted by Lady Li at 11:17 PM on August 18, 2019
A lot of those solutions also depend on the kind of time scale you're working on. If you feel like you need to get a response right away, you have to be more direct.
posted by Lady Li at 11:17 PM on August 18, 2019
I never saw conflicts resolved like this growing up (Northern England). If someone you loved was doing something that really bothered you, your options were:
- never say anything about it ever, while cultivating a deep sense of martyrdom.
- nonverbal passive-aggression (eg deep sigh whenever they did it, giving away or throwing away the things that were associated with it).
- cutting all contact with them with no explanation (though often telling other people eg "she should know that what she said about our Shirley weren't right").
- screaming row.
With a definite class-based sense to it - the options at the top of the list are much classier than those at the bottom.
posted by Vortisaur at 11:35 PM on August 18, 2019
- never say anything about it ever, while cultivating a deep sense of martyrdom.
- nonverbal passive-aggression (eg deep sigh whenever they did it, giving away or throwing away the things that were associated with it).
- cutting all contact with them with no explanation (though often telling other people eg "she should know that what she said about our Shirley weren't right").
- screaming row.
With a definite class-based sense to it - the options at the top of the list are much classier than those at the bottom.
posted by Vortisaur at 11:35 PM on August 18, 2019
Agree, absolutely not a universal or even a US given -- this model circulated primarily from self-help relationship culture.
posted by nantucket at 5:05 AM on August 19, 2019
posted by nantucket at 5:05 AM on August 19, 2019
My impression too is that the script you initially laid out is more of an ideal than actual praxis even in Western cultures. It's definitely not how it works in my (European, catholic, middle class) family - people will tell each other pretty frankly what bothers them (sooner or later; whenever patience has finally run out) and everyone will be extremly offended and defensive, there's a shouting match, mutual recriminations, doors are clashed - then everyone will give each other a bit of space for a while, the bone of contention will be avoided for as long as possible, everyone will continue as if the dispute didn't happen and try to ignore the issue until someone's patience runs out again. The general idea is that no amount of shouting matches and space needed to be given for whatever period of time changes anything about the fact that we're family and basically love each other, even we occasionally can't stand each other. (As I've grown older, I'm getting better at avoiding bones of contention and stopping the exchange of recriminations before it reaches the shouting match stage, but that's probably because "giving each other space" is easier when you've got your own money.)
posted by sohalt at 5:20 AM on August 19, 2019
posted by sohalt at 5:20 AM on August 19, 2019
I think this really depends on the relationship, too, not just the background of the people involved.
Life partner = should listen to my concerns, I should listen to theirs
Best friend/lifelong friend = ditto, but maybe a limited number of times. If I am having 'state of the relationship' talks with people too often, I tend to move on.
Casual friend/activity based friend = fairly light conversations about what's bothering me, but should be addressed right away since it's light, like 'hey, can you text next time you're late? I get worried otherwise.'
Coworker = if a peer, I would address a concern directly but positively and then go to their supervisor. If I supervise them, I have a responsibility to give them clear and consistent feedback about what is impacting on their work (good and bad).
Volunteer environment = depends on the organization
Neighbour = least said, soonest mended - I only bring up issues if they are like, next step is a lawyer
F.a.m.i.l.y. = AHAHAHAHAHA. If it is a family member where I have any hope of a resolution (i.e. they are kind of in the lifelong friend camp) then sure, otherwise I just let it go. My family (Scottish/German/Ashkenazi Jewish via the US) is mostly a passive aggressive suck it up kind of family with a streak of uncontrolled rage visible when challenged.
For me the cultural differences (and I have worked in a majority Chinese staff organization, mostly from mainland China) come out most strongly at work or at volunteer positions. Where I found difficulties were in situations where either saving face was involved or where the Westernized team expected input...our staff was very reluctant to give any answer in a meeting unless they knew what the right answer was, which was the answer of their direct superior/the highest ranking person in the room.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:12 AM on August 19, 2019
Life partner = should listen to my concerns, I should listen to theirs
Best friend/lifelong friend = ditto, but maybe a limited number of times. If I am having 'state of the relationship' talks with people too often, I tend to move on.
Casual friend/activity based friend = fairly light conversations about what's bothering me, but should be addressed right away since it's light, like 'hey, can you text next time you're late? I get worried otherwise.'
Coworker = if a peer, I would address a concern directly but positively and then go to their supervisor. If I supervise them, I have a responsibility to give them clear and consistent feedback about what is impacting on their work (good and bad).
Volunteer environment = depends on the organization
Neighbour = least said, soonest mended - I only bring up issues if they are like, next step is a lawyer
F.a.m.i.l.y. = AHAHAHAHAHA. If it is a family member where I have any hope of a resolution (i.e. they are kind of in the lifelong friend camp) then sure, otherwise I just let it go. My family (Scottish/German/Ashkenazi Jewish via the US) is mostly a passive aggressive suck it up kind of family with a streak of uncontrolled rage visible when challenged.
For me the cultural differences (and I have worked in a majority Chinese staff organization, mostly from mainland China) come out most strongly at work or at volunteer positions. Where I found difficulties were in situations where either saving face was involved or where the Westernized team expected input...our staff was very reluctant to give any answer in a meeting unless they knew what the right answer was, which was the answer of their direct superior/the highest ranking person in the room.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:12 AM on August 19, 2019
I've moved to the Midwest USA, they did not get the conflict resolution memo around here. Apparently conflict resolution around here consists of pretending the thing never happened, repressing everything & then "punishing" the other person for the conflict by not inviting them to lunch.
As someone that came from a very open talky Australian background, it took me years to read the signs. You might want to look into the differences between "Ask" & "Guess" cultures, an idea originally raised here on the green I believe.
posted by wwax at 8:26 AM on August 19, 2019
As someone that came from a very open talky Australian background, it took me years to read the signs. You might want to look into the differences between "Ask" & "Guess" cultures, an idea originally raised here on the green I believe.
posted by wwax at 8:26 AM on August 19, 2019
« Older Interview protocol question, too weird for Ask A... | Winterize my car or buy another? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Wobbuffet at 5:34 PM on August 18, 2019