The influence of religion on

Intercultural Communication, with a

case study: Egypt & Malaysia
intercultural communication
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/influence-religion-intercultural-
communication-case-study-hossam-awad

1. Introduction:
This paper considered as an attempt to seek basic similarity which enhances
communication between the two Muslim, Egyptian and Malaysian Cultures. Although each
culture has its uniqueness and there are dissimilarities, still a lot of shared values believes
and aspiration. Also despite the long distance and the different continents, Egypt and
Malaysia have a strong and long relationship, as examples, Egypt is the first importer for
the palm oil from Malaysia; on the other hand, Malaysians are the highest numbers as
Islamic students at Al-Azhar University, and now there are many of medical students in
different Egyptian Universities. Yet people of both countries believe it could be enhanced,
especially economically and culturally. Both countries can benefits from each other in
opening new markets, like the Malaysian car industry can open African markets and Middle
East markets if they cooperate with Egypt. The same for Egypt, they can cooperate with
Malaysia in agriculture field and open Asian market and so on.

The paper will focus more on religion as an influencer in the communication process
between Egypt and Malaysia. The majorities in both countries are Muslim, and regarding
the Islamic matters, Malaysia is linked to Egypt more than any other Muslim country, even
most scholars of Malaysia are learning in Egypt.

This paper also concentrates on the Islamic influence on the intercultural communication
between Egypt and Malaysia although there are other religions and cultures in both
countries, but Islam still the dominant culture. According to Samovar ET el" when we refer
to a group of people as a culture we are applying the term to the dominant culture found in
most societies; this term indicates that the group we are talking about is the one in Power.
This group usually has the greatest amount of control over how the culture carries its
business. This group possesses the power that allows them to speak for the entire culture
while setting the tone and agenda others will usually follow." (Samovar ET el: 2007:p10).
 So, Muslims in both countries are the dominant culture and they can lead the minority
according to their agenda.

2. Definition of used terms

2.1. Communication
"According to Craig Storti “communication…is one of the most common of all human
behaviours….” The perpetual presence of communication in everyday life justifies a deeper
look into its actual meaning. What does the term “communication” signify? The authors
Nancy Adler and Robert Gibson both define communication as “the exchange of meaning”.
Contrary to its simple definition, the process of communication is highly complex,
multilayered and dynamic. This is due to the fact that communication is always dependent
on the perception; interpretation and evaluation of a person’s behaviour which includes
verbal versus non-verbal as well as consciously versus unconsciously sent messages. In
other words, the message sent by the message sender never corresponds with the message
received by the message receiver. However, this problem and its causes will be looked at in
more detail in due course". (Angela Gamsriegler: 2005. P. 5)

2.2. Culture
"It is simply the way of life of a group of people passed down from one generation to the
next through learning. Culture is not inherited but instead acquired unconsciously during
childhood simply by participating in human interactions with others." (Weaver: 2000. P
1)
"Nolton suggests that culture is a group world-view, the way of organizing the world that a
particular society has created over time. This framework or web of meaning allows the
members of that society to make sense of themselves, their world, and their experiences in
that world. (Samovar ET el: 2007:p.17).
Another definition is related to the intercultural communication is:" culture represents an
imperfectly shared system of interrelated understanding, shaped by its members' shared
history and experience. Yet culture affects particularly all aspects of the way the people of a
group interact with each other or with outsiders. (Guirdham: 2005. P43)
2.3.Intercultural communication
"Intercultural communication refers to the influence of cultural variability and diversity on
interpersonally oriented communication outcomes." (Dodd: 1998. P.4)

Herzog adds by a simple word that:" intercultural communication occurs, whenever a

person from one culture sends a message to be processed by a person from a different
culture. (Herzog: 2010. P4)

3. The role of religion in intercultural communication

3.1. Importance of religion in intercultural communication

From the first day for human in the universe, Adam descended from the paradise with the
concept of Islam (TAWHEED), and the human later on deviated from this concept, but in
general, they still seek for God, and that is until the moment, although materialism concept
invade the world now, the majority of people still believe in God and still connect to each
other according to their religion and beliefs.

"People need religion because of their needs to look outside themselves for the values they
use to manage their lives and guidance on how to view and explain the world. Religion also
sanction a wide range of human conduct by providing notions of right and wrong, setting
precedents for accepting behaviour, and transforming the burden of decision making from
individuals to the supernatural power. (Samovar ET el: 2007:p.76)

It is clear that the religion is so important to any culture structure and it is the main engine
in a lot of conflicts and also the opposite, different cultures with the same religion always
find a lot of common shares, as Malefijt notes, "Religion provides explanations and assigns
values to otherwise inexplicable phenomena." (Malefijt, 1968. P145).

The significance of the religion in communicating cultures could be found in the words of
Smith when he writes, "The surest way to the heart of a people is through their religion, and
the surest way to gain insight into the importance perceptions, values, and behaviours of a
people is through their religion." (Samovar ET el: 2007:p.76)

3.2. Religious similarities

Basically, when people ask some questions related to their life like the reason for being
human, what is the universe, the death, the destiny, the right and the wrong and so more, all
of these queries are fulfilled by religion, and these transfer to the belief and values system
of the individual and the culture, accordingly, these become shared between all believers of
the religion, even they are from different cultures.

2.4.Religion and the Inner core

Carley H. Dodd created a special model for culture system; this model demonstrates the
elements of culture composing system. The inner code lies at the most significant level. The
second and the third set of elements are tied to the core. He writes, "We can describe
culture as a system since these elements as major components interact on members of a
culture. The inner elements of a culture system are the mainsprings that deal with the
history, identity, beliefs, values, and worldview of the culture." (Dodd: 1998. P.38)

To apply the religious influence on the intercultural communication between Egypt and
Malaysia, we need to apply elements one by one.

2.4.1. History as a shared element between Egyptian and

Malaysian cultures
To apply this element of the culture system on the relationship, the history of both cultures
has some features are the same, like Islam enter and dominate both cultures, they are
developed societies, they were under the British colonialism at the same era, and they have
long relation for centuries without any conflicts, barriers or problem.

2.4.2. Identity as a shared element between Egyptian and

Malaysian cultures
Identity is a very important element of the culture, they called it culture identity, and it is
something related to the personality and the society at the same time, as Y.Y. Kim explains
identity, “Similarly, the term ideology is also used in this work as a multidimensional
concept. At the macro-societal level, ideology is employed to mean what Billig (1991)
referred to as ‘‘lived ideology,’’ or ‘‘a latent consciousness or philosophy’’ that is largely
shared by people within a society as ‘‘a society’s way of life’’ or ‘‘what passes for common
sense within a society’’. At the individual level, ideology refers to a set of intellectual
beliefs of thinking individuals that are stimulated, substantiated, and constrained by the
shared beliefs of the society at large.” (Y.Y.Kim, 2007. P237).

It so clear that religion is the first determiner of the dimensions of the identity, Simon and
Collins explain more by saying that, “religion has long been regarded by social scientist
and psychologists as a key source of identity formation and maintenance, ranging from
personal conversation experiences to collective association with fellow believers. (Simon
and Collins, 2004. P3)

No one can doubt that Islam is the main identity of both Egyptian and Malaysian Cultures,
so there is a share between them in Identity’s concepts.

Dr Al-masiri, finds that Islam form a special Identity for his holders, this identity doesn’t
delete the other identities of the people who believe in Islam, so we can find Arabic
Muslim, Asian Muslim, African Muslim and Western Muslim, but all of them are sharing
the Islamic Identity above their national Identity, Al-masiri also believe that Muslim must
have its own identity even in the globalization era, and this Islamic Identity protect him
from melting in any other identity. (Al-madiri- 2009. P 114).

2.4.1. Beliefs as a shared element between Egyptian and

Malaysian cultures
Beliefs in general always related to the religion of its culture, especially regarding Islam,
but for more details about beliefs and culture inner code, Dodd says, “Each culture has an
interpretation of reality or perceptual window through which people see self and others. In
this sense, beliefs are a culture’s view of what true or false. They also hold conceptions of
how to arrive at the difference between truth and falsehood. (Dodd: 1998. P.40)
2.4.2. Values as a shared element between Egyptian and
Malaysian Cultures
To better understanding for any culture, it is a must to know its values and what exactly
these values appreciate and not appreciate, especially when speaking about different values
between different cultures, cause there are some shared values between some different
cultures, and when the values, especially those from the superstructure values system, are
similar in different cultures it will be easy to communicate with each other. To define the
value, it is “A concept becomes a value to people when they consider it as extremely
desirable. Values are thus positive or negative on the same continuum: while one people
might consider a concept as most desirable, another might say it is most undesirable, and
the third might not have a reaction.” And for more details Sitaram and Cogdell add, “Values
seems to be the basis of all decisions that a person makes. It tells him how something ought
to be and for what his life worth living, worth fighting, and even worth dying, since value is
so important, it is also necessary to influence others to accept it as the only end state of life.
Values thus become the standard for a person to judge his own and other’s
actions. (Sitaram and Haapanen, 1979, p 149).
2.4.3. Worldview as a shared element between Egyptian and
Malaysian Cultures
Worldview defined as “how much control a person believes characterizes his or her
communication encounters. Individuals organize a communication construct about
themselves and others that reflect fundamental beliefs about perceived control within
communication contexts. (Dodd: 1998. P.40)
But most of the worldview components also emerge from religion, so the influence of
religion on the worldview of its culture is the main influencer, Samovar ET el assure that
fact by mentioning, “it is found in every culture and has for thousands of years given
people their perception of the world. As Haviland and his colleagues specify, “worldview is
intricately intertwined with religious beliefs and practices. And this link between worldview
and religion is found in every culture. And as is the case with all deep structure elements,
the long history of religion is directly linked to culture. (Simon and Collins, 2004. P3)
3. Religion, Civilization and intercultural communication
Civilization as a term is very old, and vary on its meaning, but civilization according to
Oxford dictionary is” the stage of human social development and organization
which is considered most advanced, the process by which a society or place
reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization, and it is the
society, culture, and way of life of a particular area, but for modern definition it
is the comfort and convenience of modern life, regarded as available only in
towns and cities.”
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0152060#m_en_gb015206
0
Huntington, in “The Clash of Civilization”, argued that a civilization is a cultural entity- the
broadest there is. Nations, regions, even villages are also cultural entities, but the most
significant in the modern world is the civilization. Huntington Identified eight civilizations,
Islam among of them, and he saw that religion is the central element of any culture or
civilization and he, beside other famous scholars, realized that religion was seen as having
grown in importance in recent decades. (Guirdham, 2005. P61)
This paper is not concentrating on the theory of the clash of civilization as Huntington
came with, instead it focuses on the Importance of the religion and the relation between it
and civilization and how it affects the communication between cultures, Huntington
mentioned that “Civilization Identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the
world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among seven or eight major
civilizations. (Weaver, 2000. P473). And regarding to the influence of religion on all
aspect of civilizations from old history to the modern era, Huntington said that, “the revival
of religion occurring in so many parts of the world and most notably in the cultural
resurgence in Asian and Islamic countries generated in large part by their economic and
demographic dynamism, religion, indigenous or imported, provides meaning and direction
for the rising elites in modernizing societies.” (Guirdham, 2005. P62)

Muslim Scholars on their contemporary issues see that Huntington represent the modern
thought and the modern philosophy in the west towards attacking Islamic civilization.
Applying this fact on the intercultural communication between Muslim cultures will give
one result, it is a must for all Muslim cultures to know that they are classified according to
their religion, if they agree or disagree it is a fact, the other cultures will deal with them
regardless they are Asian, African, or from any other races. So, they must interact according
to this fact, even their cultures have other aspects, but still, the religion is the main actor.

As a result, religion affects civilization, and they both affect the intercultural
communication, the religion in Egypt and Malaysia is Islam, and the civilizations of both
countries have a lot of similarities. All of these factors easily can enhance the
communication between the Egyptian and Malaysian cultures, especially in the modern era,
even it is the Globalization era, still the world believes in Religion and civilization
differences.

4. Islam and Intercultural Communication

Islam and Intercultural Communication is a big mission and it needs a special study, but
here it is just a hint about how Islam deals with the concept of communication of different
cultures.

First of all, Islam Considers all People are equal in their rights, no difference between races,
colors, or sex. In the Quran it is clear that the all are the same, “O mankind! We
have created you from a male and a female, and made
you into nations and tribes, that you may know one
another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allâh is
that (believer) who has At-Taqwa [i.e. he is one of the
Muttaqûn (pious - see V.2:2). Verily, Allâh is All-
Knowing, All-Aware.”Al-Hugurat-13
And when Allah speaks to his Prophet Muhammad- peace be upon him- he explains that
Muhammad is a mercy for all mankind, not only for Arab Nation or even for Muslim alone,
“And We have sent you (O Muhammad SAW) not but as
a mercy for the 'Alamîn (mankind, jinn and all that
exists)”. Al-Anbyiaa 107
A lot of verses also in Quran assure about how to communicate with other cultures,
choosing one of them can tells us like, “Invite (mankind, O Muhammad
SAW) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islâm) with wisdom
(i.e. with the Divine Revelation and the Qur'ân) and fair
preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better.
Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from
His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are
guided.” Al-Nahl 125
The prophet Muhammad himself also says: “Oh My Lord, Lord of All things, I
witness that you are the one without partner, I witness that all
your slaves are Brothers.” So the main two source of Islam “Quran and Sunnah”
are calling for tolerance and communicating the other people in a good way.
Islam concentrate on communication through Muslim societies, Islam consider All Muslims
are one body and there is no difference at all between all of them, Islam consider the Arab
nation, as the prophet Muhammad among them, like any other nation, Allah in the holy
Quran says about the Muslims that they are like one heart has one destiny, Allah says to the
prophet, “And He has united their (i.e. believers') hearts. If
you had spent all that is in the earth, you could not have
united their hearts, but Allâh has united them.
Certainly He is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” Al-Anfal 63
The prophet in his saying assures that “all believers in their mutual love and
mercy are like one body, if any part of it complained from hurt,
the other parts will suffer also.”
The significance of Islam in the relationship among its believers couldn’t be ignored, and it
is one of the main power within the Muslims cultures and one of the best features of their
unity, the history witnesses that when Muslim form a unity they spread the mercy,
tolerance, love and peace through the other cultures, and of course the opposite of this fact
brings the opposite result.

5. Media’s role in Intercultural Communication

Media’s role in Intercultural Communication is complex, ranging from association with the
cultural communication needs to various meaning related to the globalization aspects.

“Mass communication has enormous effects on culture today. Researchers and scholars
argue about its effects but they agree that Media affects cultures because, it creates
awareness, set agendas, accelerate change, influence
interpersonal sources of information, and stimulate
rumors. And also they describe it as, “addiction, source of violence,
and a shaper of cultural thought process.(Dodd, 1998. P 240)
In the recent decades, Media accelerated some wars and sometimes it play a good role to
connect cultures, as an example, the big role for the BBC channel, which it plays for the
British culture inside Great Britain or with the other cultures. The examples are so many in
the different type of media.

For the intercultural communication between Egypt and Malaysia, Media has the ability to
play such important role to connect between these cultures. Media also could improve the
economic and the cultural relationship among people of both cultures.

6. Conclusion
According to the aforementioned information, the religion in general and Islam, in
particular, has a significant influence in the intercultural communication, moreover, it could
be the main influencer on that process. Religion shapes the values system, the identity, the
worldview, and the ideology of our life purpose. Religion motivates our behaviors.

Islam concentrates more and more on the intercultural communication, especially among
those Muslims. Islam considers it is compulsory for all Muslim to be united and to help
each other, the spiritual relationship between Muslims societies makes them more closely
and more connected, they have one Doctrine, one prophet, one holy book and above of all,
one destiny

Egypt and Malaysian intercultural communication can benefit a lot from

being Muslim, the history of the relationship within centuries proves that it is so strong and
no conflict or obstacles between them.

The people of both cultures are linked together and hope to achieve more advances, not
only because of the religious ritual matters but also for the welfare of both societies, in the
economy, education, trading, tourism, agriculture and other fields.

The best conclusion maybe appears in this verse from the Quran:

“Help you one another in Al-Birr and At-Taqwa (virtue,

righteousness and piety); but do not help one another in
sin and transgression. And fear Allâh. Verily, Allâh is
Severe in punishment.” Al-Maeda 2
Religion, Culture, and
Communication
Summary and Keywords
Religion is an essential element of the human condition. Hundreds of studies have
examined how religious beliefs mold an individual’s sociology and psychology. In
particular, research has explored how an individual’s religion (religious beliefs,
religious denomination, strength of religious devotion, etc.) is linked to their cultural
beliefs and background. While some researchers have asserted that religion is an
essential part of an individual’s culture, other researchers have focused more on how
religion is a culture in itself. The key difference is how researchers conceptualize and
operationalize both of these terms. Moreover, the influence of communication in how
individuals and communities understand, conceptualize, and pass on religious and
cultural beliefs and practices is integral to understanding exactly what religion and
culture are.

It is through exploring the relationships among religion, culture, and communication

that we can best understand how they shape the world in which we live and have
shaped the communication discipline itself. Furthermore, as we grapple with these
relationships and terms, we can look to the future and realize that the study of religion,
culture, and communication is vast and open to expansion. Researchers are beginning
to explore the influence of mediation on religion and culture, how our globalized world
affects the communication of religions and cultures, and how interreligious
communication is misunderstood; and researchers are recognizing the need to extend
studies into non-Christian religious cultures.

Keywords: religion, communication, culture, community, intercultural communication

Intricate Relationships among Religion,

Communication, and Culture
Compiling an entry on the relationships among religion, culture, and communication is
not an easy task. There is not one accepted definition for any of these three terms, and
research suggests that the connections among these concepts are complex, to say the
least. Thus, this article attempts to synthesize the various approaches to these three
terms and integrate them. In such an endeavor, it is impossible to discuss all
philosophical and paradigmatic debates or include all disciplines.

Religion
It is difficult to define religion from one perspective and with one encompassing
definition. “Religion” is often defined as the belief in or the worship of a god or gods.
Geertz (1973) defined a religion as

(1) a system which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods
and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence
and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods
and motivations seem uniquely realistic.
(p. 90)

It is essential to recognize that religion cannot be understood apart from the world in
which it takes place (Marx & Engels, 1975). To better understand how religion relates
to and affects culture and communication, we should first explore key definitions,
philosophies, and perspectives that have informed how we currently look at religion. In
particular, the influences of Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Georg
Simmel are discussed to further understand the complexity of religion.

Karl Marx (1818–1883) saw religion as descriptive and evaluative. First, from a
descriptive point of view, Marx believed that social and economic situations shape how
we form and regard religions and what is religious. For Marx, the fact that people tend
to turn to religion more when they are facing economic hardships or that the same
religious denomination is practiced differently in different communities would seem
perfectly logical. Second, Marx saw religion as a form of alienation (Marx &
Engels, 1975). For Marx, the notion that the Catholic Church, for example, had the
ability or right to excommunicate an individual, and thus essentially exclude them from
the spiritual community, was a classic example of exploitation and domination. Such
alienation and exploitation was later echoed in the works of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–
1900), who viewed organized religion as society and culture controlling man
(Nietzsche, 1996).

Building on Marxist thinking, Weber (1864–1920) stressed the multicausality of

religion. Weber (1963) emphasized three arguments regarding religion and society: (1)
how a religion relates to a society is contingent (it varies); (2) the relationship between
religion and society can only be examined in its cultural and historical context; and (3)
the relationship between society and religion is slowly eroding. Weber’s arguments can
be applied to Catholicism in Europe. Until the Protestant Reformation of the 15th and
16th centuries, Catholicism was the dominant religious ideology on the European
continent. However, since the Reformation, Europe has increasingly become more
Protestant and less Catholic. To fully grasp why many Europeans gravitate toward
Protestantism and not Catholicism, we must consider the historical and cultural
reasons: the Reformation, economics, immigration, politics, etc., that have all led to the
majority of Europeans identifying as Protestant (Davie, 2008). Finally, even though the
majority of Europeans identify as Protestant, secularism (separation of church and
state) is becoming more prominent in Europe. In nations like France, laws are in place
that officially separate the church and state, while in Northern Europe, church
attendance is low, and many Europeans who identify as Protestant have very low
religiosity (strength of religious devotion), focusing instead on being secularly religious
individuals. From a Weberian point of view, the links among religion, history, and
culture in Europe explain the decline of Catholicism, the rise of Protestantism, and now
the rise of secularism.

Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) focused more on how religion performs a necessary

function; it brings people and society together. Durkheim (1976) thus defined a religion
as
a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things
which are set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single
moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.

(p. 47)

From this perspective, religion and culture are inseparable, as beliefs and practices
are uniquely cultural. For example, religious rituals (one type of practice) unite
believers in a religion and separate nonbelievers. The act of communion, or the
sharing of the Eucharist by partaking in consecrated bread and wine, is practiced by
most Christian denominations. However, the frequency of communion differs
extensively, and the ritual is practiced differently based on historical and theological
differences among denominations.

Georg Simmel (1858–1918) focused more on the fluidity and permanence of religion
and religious life. Simmel (1950) believed that religious and cultural beliefs develop
from one another. Moreover, he asserted that religiosity is an essential element to
understand when examining religious institutions and religion. While individuals may
claim to be part of a religious group, Simmel asserted that it was important to consider
just how religious the individuals were. In much of Europe, religiosity is low: Germany
34%, Sweden 19%, Denmark 42%, the United Kingdom 30%, the Czech Republic
23%, and The Netherlands 26%, while religiosity is relatively higher in the United
States (56%), which is now considered the most religious industrialized nation in the
world (Telegraph Online, 2015). The decline of religiosity in parts of Europe and its rise
in the U.S. is linked to various cultural, historical, and communicative developments
that will be further discussed.

Combining Simmel’s (1950) notion of religion with Geertz’s (1973) concept of religion
and a more basic definition (belief in or the worship of a god or gods through rituals), it
is clear that the relationship between religion and culture is integral and symbiotic. As
Clark and Hoover (1997) noted, “culture and religion are inseparable” and “religion is
an important consideration in theories of culture and society” (p. 17).

Outside of the Western/Christian perception of religion, Buddhist scholars such as

Nagarajuna present a relativist framework to understand concepts like time and
causality. This framework is distinct from the more Western way of thinking, in that
notions of present, past, and future are perceived to be chronologically distorted, and
the relationship between cause and effect is paradoxical (Wimal, 2007). Nagarajuna’s
philosophy provides Buddhism with a relativist, non-solid dependent, and non-static
understanding of reality (Kohl, 2007). Mulla Sadra’s philosophy explored the
metaphysical relationship between the created universe and its singular creator. In his
philosophy, existence takes precedence over essence, and any existing object reflects
a part of the creator. Therefore, every devoted person is obliged to know themselves
as the first step to knowing the creator, which is the ultimate reason for existence. This
Eastern perception of religion is similar to that of Nagarajuna and Buddhism, as they
both include the paradoxical elements that are not easily explained by the rationality of
Western philosophy. For example, the god, as Mulla Sadra defines it, is beyond
definition, description, and delamination, yet it is absolutely simple and unique
(Burrell, 2013).
Culture
How researchers define and study culture varies extensively. For example, Hall (1989)
defined culture as “a series of situational models for behavior and thought” (p. 13).
Geertz (1973), building on the work of Kluckhohn (1949), defined culture in terms of 11
different aspects:

(1) the total way of life of a people; (2) the social legacy the individual acquires from
his group; (3) a way of thinking, feeling, and believing; (4) an abstraction from
behavior; (5) a theory on the part of the anthropologist about the way in which a group
of people in fact behave; (6) a storehouse of pooled learning; (7) a set of standardized
orientations to recurrent problems; (8) learned behavior; (9) a mechanism for the
normative regulation of behavior; (10) a set of techniques for adjusting both to the
external environment and to other men; (11) a precipitate of history.

(Geertz, 1973, p. 5)

Research on culture is divided between an essentialist camp and a constructivist

camp. The essentialist view regards culture as a concrete and fixed system of symbols
and meanings (Holiday, 1999). An essentialist approach is most prevalent in linguistic
studies, in which national culture is closely linked to national language. Regarding
culture as a fluid concept, constructionist views of culture focus on how it is performed
and negotiated by individuals (Piller, 2011). In this sense, “culture” is a verb rather than
a noun. In principle, a non-essentialist approach rejects predefined national cultures
and uses culture as a tool to interpret social behavior in certain contexts.

Different approaches to culture influence significantly how it is incorporated into

communication studies. Cultural communication views communication as a resource
for individuals to produce and regulate culture (Philipsen, 2002). Constructivists tend to
perceive culture as a part of the communication process (Applegate & Sypher, 1988).
Cross-cultural communication typically uses culture as a national boundary. Hofstede
(1991) is probably the most popular scholar in this line of research. Culture is thus
treated as a theoretical construct to explain communication variations across cultures.
This is also evident in intercultural communication studies, which focus on
misunderstandings between individuals from different cultures.

Religion, Community, and Culture

There is an interplay among religion, community, and culture. Community is essentially
formed by a group of people who share common activities or beliefs based on their
mutual affect, loyalty, and personal concerns. Participation in religious institutions is
one of the most dominant community engagements worldwide. Religious institutions
are widely known for creating a sense of community by offering various material and
social supports for individual followers. In addition, the role that religious organizations
play in communal conflicts is also crucial. As religion deals with the ultimate matters of
life, the differences among different religious beliefs are virtually impossible to settle.
Although a direct causal relationship between religion and violence is not well
supported, religion is, nevertheless, commonly accepted as a potential escalating
factor in conflicts. Currently, religious conflicts are on the rise, and they are typically
more violent, long-lasting, and difficult to resolve. In such cases, local religious
organizations, places facilitating collective actions in the community, are extremely
vital, as they can either preach peace or stir up hatred and violence. The peace impact
of local religious institutions has been largely witnessed in India and Indonesia where
conflicts are solved at the local level before developing into communal violence (De
Juan, Pierskalla, & Vüllers, 2015).

While religion affects cultures (Beckford & Demerath, 2007), it itself is also affected by
culture, as religion is an essential layer of culture. For example, the growth of
individualism in the latter half of the 20th century has been coincident with the decline
in the authority of Judeo-Christian institutions and the emergence of “parachurches”
and more personal forms of prayer (Hoover & Lundby, 1997). However, this decline in
the authority of the religious institutions in modernized society has not reduced the
important role of religion and spirituality as one of the main sources of calm when
facing painful experiences such as death, suffering, and loss.

When cultural specifications, such as individualism and collectivism, have been

attributed to religion, the proposed definitions and functions of religion overlap with
definitions of culture. For example, researchers often combine religious identification
(Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc.) with cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1991) like
individualism/collectivism to understand and compare cultural differences. Such
combinations for comparison and analytical purposes demonstrate how religion and
religious identification in particular are often relegated to a micro-level variable, when
in fact the true relationship between an individual’s religion and culture is inseparable.

Religion as Part of Culture in Communication

Studies
Religion as a part of culture has been linked to numerous communication traits and
behaviors. Specifically, religion has been linked with media use and preferences (e.g.,
Stout & Buddenbaum, 1996), health/medical decisions and communication about
health-related issues (Croucher & Harris, 2012), interpersonal communication (e.g.,
Croucher, Faulkner, Oommen, & Long, 2012B), organizational behaviors (e.g., Garner
& Wargo, 2009), and intercultural communication traits and behaviors (e.g., Croucher,
Braziunaite, & Oommen, 2012A). In media and religion scholarship, researchers have
shown how religion as a cultural variable has powerful effects on media use,
preferences, and gratifications. The research linking media and religion is vast (Stout &
Buddenbaum, 1996). This body of research has shown how “religious worldviews are
created and sustained in ongoing social processes in which information is shared”
(Stout & Buddenbaum, 1996, pp. 7–8). For example, religious Christians are more
likely to read newspapers, while religious individuals are less likely to have a favorable
opinion of the internet (Croucher & Harris, 2012), and religious individuals (who
typically attend religious services and are thus integrated into a religious community)
are more likely to read media produced by the religious community (Davie, 2008).

Research into health/medical decisions and communication about health-related

issues is also robust. Research shows how religion, specifically religiosity, promotes
healthier living and better decision-making regarding health and wellbeing (Harris &
Worley, 2012). For example, a religious (or spiritual) approach to cancer treatment can
be more effective than a secular approach (Croucher & Harris, 2012), religious
attendance promotes healthier living, and people with HIV/AIDS often turn to religion
for comfort as well. These studies suggest the significance of religion in health
communication and in our health.

Research specifically examining the links between religion and interpersonal

communication is not as vast as the research into media, health, and religion.
However, this slowly growing body of research has explored areas such as rituals, self-
disclosure (Croucher et al., 2012B), and family dynamics (Davie, 2008), to name a few.

The role of religion in organizations is well studied. Overall, researchers have shown
how religious identification and religiosity influence an individual’s organizational
behavior. For example, research has shown that an individual’s religious identification
affects levels of organizational dissent (Croucher et al., 2012A). Garner and Wargo
(2009) further showed that organizational dissent functions differently in churches than
in nonreligious organizations. Kennedy and Lawton (1998) explored the relationships
between religious beliefs and perceptions about business/corporate ethics and found
that individuals with stronger religious beliefs have stricter ethical beliefs.

Researchers are increasingly looking at the relationships between religion and

intercultural communication. Researchers have explored how religion affects
numerous communication traits and behaviors and have shown how religious
communities perceive and enact religious beliefs. Antony (2010), for example,
analyzed the bindi in India and how the interplay between religion and culture affects
people’s acceptance of it. Karniel and Lavie-Dinur (2011) showed how religion and
culture influence how Palestinian Arabs are represented on Israeli television.
Collectively, the intercultural work examining religion demonstrates the increasing
importance of the intersection between religion and culture in communication studies.

Collectively, communication studies discourse about religion has focused on how

religion is an integral part of an individual’s culture. Croucher et al. (2016), in a content
analysis of communication journal coverage of religion and spirituality from 2002 to
2012, argued that the discourse largely focuses on religion as a cultural variable by
identifying religious groups as variables for comparative analysis, exploring “religious”
or “spiritual” as adjectives to describe entities (religious organizations), and analyzing
the relationships between religious groups in different contexts. Croucher and Harris
(2012) asserted that the discourse about religion, culture, and communication is still in
its infancy, though it continues to grow at a steady pace.

Future Lines of Inquiry

Research into the links among religion, culture, and communication has shown the
vast complexities of these terms. With this in mind, there are various directions for
future research/exploration that researchers could take to expand and benefit our
practical understanding of these concepts and how they relate to one another. Work
should continue to define these terms with a particular emphasis on mediation, closely
consider these terms in a global context, focus on how intergroup dynamics influence
this relationship, and expand research into non-Christian religious cultures.

Additional definitional work still needs to be done to clarify exactly what is meant by
“religion,” “culture,” and “communication.” Our understanding of these terms and
relationships can be further enhanced by analyzing how forms of mass communication
mediate each other. Martin-Barbero (1993) asserted that there should be a shift from
media to mediations as multiple opposing forces meet in communication. He defined
mediation as “the articulations between communication practices and social
movements and the articulation of different tempos of development with the plurality of
cultural matrices” (p. 187). Religions have relied on mediations through various media
to communicate their messages (oral stories, print media, radio, television, internet,
etc.). These media share religious messages, shape the messages and religious
communities, and are constantly changing. What we find is that, as media
sophistication develops, a culture’s understandings of mediated messages changes
(Martin-Barbero, 1993). Thus, the very meanings of religion, culture, and
communication are transitioning as societies morph into more digitally mediated
societies. Research should continue to explore the effects of digital mediation on our
conceptualizations of religion, culture, and communication.

Closely linked to mediation is the need to continue extending our focus on the
influence of globalization on religion, culture, and communication. It is essential to
study the relationships among culture, religion, and communication in the context of
globalization. In addition to trading goods and services, people are increasingly
sharing ideas, values, and beliefs in the modern world. Thus, globalization not only
leads to technological and socioeconomic changes, but also shapes individuals’ ways
of communicating and their perceptions and beliefs about religion and culture. While
religion represents an old way of life, globalization challenges traditional meaning
systems and is often perceived as a threat to religion. For instance, Marx and Weber
both asserted that modernization was incompatible with tradition. But, in contrast,
globalization could facilitate religious freedom by spreading the idea of freedom
worldwide. Thus, future work needs to consider the influence of globalization to fully
grasp the interrelationships among religion, culture, and communication in the world.

A review of the present definitions of religion in communication research reveals that

communication scholars approach religion as a holistic, total, and unique institution or
notion, studied from the viewpoint of different communication fields such as health,
intercultural, interpersonal, organizational communication, and so on. However, this
approach to communication undermines the function of a religion as a culture and also
does not consider the possible differences between religious cultures. For example,
religious cultures differ in their levels of individualism and collectivism. There are also
differences in how religious cultures interact to compete for more followers and
territory (Klock, Novoa, & Mogaddam, 2010). Thus, localization is one area of further
research for religion communication studies. This line of study best fits in the domain
of intergroup communication. Such an approach will provide researchers with the
opportunity to think about the roles that interreligious communication can play in areas
such as peacemaking processes (Klock et al., 2010).
Academic discourse about religion has focused largely on Christian denominations. In
a content analysis of communication journal discourse on religion and spirituality,
Croucher et al. (2016) found that the terms “Christian” or “Christianity” appeared in
9.56% of all articles, and combined with other Christian denominations (Catholicism,
Evangelism, Baptist, Protestantism, and Mormonism, for example), appeared in
18.41% of all articles. Other religious cultures (denominations) made up a relatively
small part of the overall academic discourse: Islam appeared in 6.8%, Judaism in
4.27%, and Hinduism in only 0.96%. Despite the presence of various faiths in the data,
the dominance of Christianity and its various denominations is incontestable. Having
religions unevenly represented in the academic discourse is problematic. This highly
unbalanced representation presents a biased picture of religious practices. It also
represents one faith as being the dominant faith and others as being minority religions
in all contexts.

Ultimately, the present overview, with its focus on religion, culture, and communication
points to the undeniable connections among these concepts. Religion and culture are
essential elements of humanity, and it is through communication, that these elements
of humanity are mediated. Whether exploring these terms in health, interpersonal,
intercultural, intergroup, mass, or other communication contexts, it is evident that
understanding the intersection(s) among religion, culture, and communication offers
vast opportunities for researchers and practitioners.

http://communication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/a
crefore-9780190228613-e-166

INTRODUCTION Today globalization has widely become one of the most powerful forces
shaping the modem world, hut ironically cannot be defined easily. Globalization is a
complex concept that involves political, economic and socio-cultural orders and has created
new global ideologies. In fact, globalization is a multifaceted word that does not refer to a
single notion, but can be characterized as a systematic integration of commercial, cultural,
and technological advancements. The information and communication revolution is one of
the most important factors in globalization, and has changed people's relations and the
relative meaning of time and space, reducing communicative distance, demolishing
physical houndaries while increasing relations between people, governments and cultures.
Through information and communications technologies, substantial populations on earth
are exposed to foreign cultures and ideas and feel the threat of losing their national and
religious identities. Because information and commimications technologies have to be
considered part of processes of liberal-capitalist modernity or Westemization the process of
becoming modem in today's world is perceived as involving methods of the power elite,
which brings old practices, cultures and religious identities into question, thus raising the
potential for conflict. In this atmosphere, globalization of cultures and religious identities
becomes one of the more important impacts of information and communication technology.
In fact, as social and political stmctures influence many of these power relations, the
information and communication technology can advance the destmction of existing cultures
and religious identities. The assumption of cultural globalization is that if other societies
want to become civilized, they must abandon their cultures and identities. On the other
hand, culture globalization with rise of Information and Communications Technologies
(ICT) in recent years has quite possibly contributed to accelerate a perceived uniform world
culture in which democracy and its values are proceeding strongly through various aspects
of life: cultural, industries, international language, music, press and media etc. In this
increasingly globalized culture, some countries feel they have little or no margin of action
as they attempt to position themselves into the so-called global village. Therefore, when
speaking about culture globalization by information and communications technology, it is
important to understand its negative effects. The first negative of culture globalization is
ideological, religious and identity conflicts at national levels that are driven by information
and communication technology. In fact use of information and communication technology
plays an important role in the appearance of such conflicts. Communication globalization
has modified many political, economic, and social factors which have increased the basic
conflict between the old cultures and the new cultures, between secularism and religion,
between the West and the East. Thus the fundamental challenge confronting humanistic and
cultural studies the focus of this article is how, in an age of information and communication
globalization, can we reconcile the conflict and the tension between cultural and religious
identities with different (or the new) cultures and civilizations that want to be a member of
the global village; without succmnbing to cultural homogenization through some of these
Western values and symbols.

MEANING OF GLOBALIZATION

Today globalization has widely become one of the most powerful forces shaping the
modem world and cannot be defined easily. In fact, globalization is a complex concept that
involves political, economic and socio-cultural orders and has created new global beliefs. In
other words, globalization is a multifaceted word that does not refer to a single notion.
Reviewing the literature does give some basic insight into the concept of cultural
globalization and its implications. Giddens' view of globalization is "an intensification of
world-wide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings
are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa." (Giddens, Anthony,
1990) In other words, globalization involves changes in the spatial reach of capital,
financial activities, advanced producer services, and information that transcends the
political state system and where, arguably, multinational corporations replace states and
commimities as the dominant actors in the global system. In theory, a globalized
socioeconomic system would be freer, more efficient, economically rational, and unfettered
by state-directed diversions of wealth into unproductive areas. As production is reorganized
across time and space, industries interpenetrate across political borders, financial capital
spreads across the globe, homogenized consumer goods diffuse to distant markets, and
people flow to new areas of economic opportunity, the local and the global will become
inextricably intertwined in a system of imiversal order. (Keeling, Latin 2002) For Held and
McGrew "globalization denotes the expanding scale, growing magnitude, speeding up and
deepening impact of interregional flows and pattems of social interaction. It refers to a shift
or transformation in the scale of human social organization that links distant communities
and expands the reach of power relations across the world's major regions and continents."
(Held/McGrew 2000: 2; cf. Held et. al. 1999: 16)
 This is an excerpt from International Relations – an E-IR
Foundations beginner’s textbook. Download your free copy here.

Religion and culture seem like complex ideas to study from the
perspective of International Relations. After all, scholars and
philosophers have long debated the meaning of these terms and
the impact they have had on our comprehension of the social
world around us. So is it an impossibly complicated task to
study religion and culture at the global level? Fortunately, the
answer is ‘no’, for we can recognise and respect complexity
without being confused about what we mean by each term. In
this chapter, which completes the first section of the book, we
will explore why thinking about religious and cultural factors in
global affairs is as integral as the other issues we have covered
thus far.

What do we mean by the terms ‘religion’ and ‘culture’? Where

can we see examples of religion and culture at work in the
domains of world politics? How do religious and cultural factors
impact on our ability to live together? Our investigation will
begin to address these questions. As we do so, we shall keep in
mind the encouragement of rabbi and political philosopher
Jonathan Sacks, who wrote that ‘sometimes it is helpful to
simplify, to draw a diagram rather than a map in order to
understand what may be at stake in a social transition’ (1997,
55). There has indeed been a transition in IR thinking about the
value of religion and culture.

How can we define religion and culture in a way that is useful to

the study of world politics? It is important to sketch each term
separately before bringing them back together to form a
composite picture. We begin with religion, a category that
scholars and policymakers once considered irrelevant to the
study of IR because it was not believed to be important for the
economic and security interests of modern states and their
citizens. Yet, many scholars now hold that religion cannot be
ignored. While the idea of culture has equally been underplayed
in IR, its inclusion in analyses of world affairs predates that of
religion and is considered less controversial. We shall consider
four elements of each category and then make important
linkages between them so that religion and culture make sense
as whole, rather than fragmented, ideas.

Elements of religion

Following the Al Qaeda attacks on the US on 11 September 2001

(often called 9/11), studies of religion in world politics increased
sixfold. In the words of Robert Keohane, the events of 9/11
provoked the realisation that ‘world-shaking political
movements have so often been fuelled by religious fervour’
(2002, 29). Indeed, whether it is the disruptions of religion-led
revolution, the work of religious development agencies
responding to natural disasters, peace-making efforts of
religious diplomats or a myriad of other examples, even a glance
at global affairs over recent decades seems to support the
comment of sociologist Peter Berger that ‘the world today … is
as furiously religious as it ever was, and in some places more so
than ever’ (1999, 2).

Such a view also seems supported by the numbers as

‘worldwide, more than eight-in-ten people identify with a
religious group’ (Pew 2012, 9). Are you numbered among the 20
or 80 per cent? Do you think religious influence on global affairs
is a welcome inclusion or a significant problem? Regardless of
where we stand, it appears a closer look at the ‘religion
question’ is in order if we are to establish a fuller picture of IR.
The following four elements of religion may provide a useful
introduction.

1. God(s) and forces in the public square

The first element of religion is the belief that divine beings

and/or forces hold relevance to the meaning and practice of
politics today and throughout history. These beings are
sometimes understood as a knowable God or gods, sometimes
as mythical and symbolic figures from our ancient past and
sometimes as impersonal forces beyond the physical realm.
Different religious traditions understand the influence of religion
upon politics in different ways. Traditions that we might call
‘fundamental’ propose that politics is a matter of organising
society according to divine commands. In Iran, for example, the
highest court in the land is a religious one, drawing its
principles from the Shia branch of Islam – the second largest
Islamic tradition worldwide after the majority Sunni tradition.
This court has the power to veto laws of parliament and decide
who can hold power. Likewise, in Myanmar (formerly Burma) an
influential group of religious monks has started a movement
intent on imposing Buddhist principles on the whole country,
including non-Buddhist minorities. Thus, some religious politics
is based on ‘fundamentals’ that, in the view of adherents,
cannot be changed without the standards of society also being
compromised.

By contrast, traditions that adopt a ‘contextual’ approach hold

that politics is a matter of influencing society according to
divine principles but as part of a wider tapestry of influences.
For example, religious development organisations such as the
Aga Khan Development Network (also from the Shia branch of
Islam) work in areas of health care and education in countries
of Africa and Asia without seeking to control entire political
systems. Likewise, in Myanmar, the so-called Saffron Revolution
of 2007 saw Buddhist monks stand with the poor against the
ruling military dictatorship and support the beginnings of multi-
party democracy. In these examples, religious politics is
adapted to changing circumstances and takes into account
diverse interests and beliefs across society.

What is common to both fundamental and contextual religious

traditions is an understanding that politics is in some sort of
interactive relationship with the intentions of, or traditions
shaped by, gods (or God) and spiritual forces. This contrasts
strongly with secular approaches that demote, and sometimes
deny altogether, a role for religion in political affairs.

Do you believe that religion has a role to play in public debates

or should it be confined to private spirituality only? From an
individual point of view, we could address this question by
asking what it would be like to live in societies that are either
entirely controlled by religion, or entirely without religion. What
would the benefits and losses be in each situation? It can be
strongly argued that neither scenario exists in pure form. When
religion has been used to dominate the public square, a
diversity of groups (non-religious and religious) have risen in
opposition. Likewise, when religion has been expelled from the
public domain, religious actors and interests go underground
waiting for a chance to re-emerge.

2. Sacred symbols (re)defining what is real

The second element of religion are rituals that re-order the

world according to religious principle. Although the word ‘faith’
can be associated with belief in unseen realities, humans
throughout time have needed to see, touch and smell the
sacred. Our senses are portals to the spirit. Therefore, rituals
function as tangible symbols of the intangible realm. For
examples of different studies that consider the public rituals of
Judaism, Islam and Hinduism respectively see Beck (2012),
Bronner (2011) and Haider (2011). While some religious rituals
are private or hidden, many are performed in public spaces or in
ways that are openly accessible to wider society. As such, they
are a part of public life – which is one of the original definitions
of the word politics.

For religious adherents, rituals symbolise spiritual truths but

they can also redefine how power can be understood in the
material world. Thomas Merton once described his experience
of watching Trappist monks perform the rituals of the Catholic
Mass in very political terms. He wrote:

The eloquence of this liturgy [communicated] one, simple, cogent,

tremendous truth: this church, the court of the Queen of Heaven, is
the real capital of the country in which we are living. These men,
hidden in the anonymity of their choir and their white cowls, are doing
for their land what no army, no congress, no president could ever do
as such: they are winning for it the grace and the protection and the
friendship of God. (Merton 1948, 325)
Merton’s experience of redefining power and influence through
sacred symbols is true for millions of people practising
thousands of different religious rituals each day. Beyond the
experience of individuals, states also seek divine blessing. For
example, over one-fifth of states today have a monarch (such as
a king, queen or emperor). Although monarchs differ in the
extent of their powers – from figureheads controlled by
parliaments to absolute rulers to variations of these – they all
draw their power from some form of religious or spiritual
authority. The elaborate rituals of monarchies worldwide are
understood by their subjects to symbolise divine blessing for the
realm and its citizens, redefining where the real power lies.

3. Sacred stories connecting past, present and future

The third element of religion is teaching traditions based on

stories of significant figures, events and ideas from the past and
beliefs about the future of time itself – like a spoiler alert about
the end of the world. For some religions, however, time itself is
an illusion and the main focus is living in the now according to
sacred ideas rather than the connection of past–present–future.
These elements – interpreting the past, projecting the future,
living now – are basic to the development of political ideologies
also. Therefore, sometimes religious and political groups can
appeal to the same stories or ideas even though the
interpretation or intent may differ significantly.

For example, both Jews and Christians uphold the idea of

‘Jubilee’ as central to understanding the story and/or future
promise of a Messiah who would usher in a new era of justice
with peace (or ‘shalom’). In the 1990s members of both
communities appealed to one aspect of Jubilee – a tradition of
debt cancellation found in the Hebrew Bible – as the basis for
addressing the debt crisis facing developing nations. Only a few
years later, this sacred story was used for very different
purposes by US president George W. Bush, who celebrated the
2003 invasion of Iraq by quoting a Jubilee text from the Book of
Isaiah: ‘To the captives come out, and to those in darkness be
free’ (Monbiot 2003). Sacred stories, ideas and teachings from
the past have a richness and power that can influence political
affairs today and the aspirations we hold for tomorrow. It is no
wonder that the anthropologist Talal Asad once observed that
what we today call religion has ‘always been involved in the
world of power’ (2003, 200).

4. A community worshiping and acting together

The fourth element common to most religions is the need for

believers to belong to a faith community in order to practice
sacred rituals and reinforce the truth of sacred stories. Some
religious traditions could be described as high demand,
requiring strict adherence to rules and standards in order to
maintain membership of the faith community. Other traditions
are low demand, adopting a more flexible approach to the
requirements for belonging faithfully to the community. Both
forms of faith commitment are expressions of religion as
‘identity politics’ connected to who we are (that is, who we
understand ourselves to be) and how we live.

The connection between religion and identity politics can have

individual and international significance. For instance,
empowered by belonging to a faith community, individuals can
act in ways that they might not otherwise have done in
isolation. Rosa Parks, an African American woman who
famously refused to obey American racial segregation laws and
sparked a nation-wide civil rights movement in the 1960s, is
often lauded as a heroic individual. This may be true, but as a
member of a religious community that affirmed human dignity
and the divine principles of racial equality, Rosa Parks was
never acting in isolation (Thomas 2005, 230–240). This can be
understood internationally also, as many (if not most) faith
communities have a transnational membership, and some of
these exert significant influence on political issues varying from
religion-inspired terrorist action against ‘Western’ values (after
all, not all religious politics is peace-orientated) to faith
coalitions for environmental sustainability.

The four elements of religion described above – the significance

of gods and spirits, the power of holy rituals, the telling of
sacred stories and belonging to faith communities – seem in
their own ways to be a core aspect of the human condition in
the twenty-first century. Although many dimensions of the
religious experience can be ‘politics-free’, both history and
contemporary events remind us that these combined elements
of religion can have a political impact on individuals, nations
and international society.

Elements of culture

We can approach the term culture in the same way we have

considered religion. There are many proposed meanings of
culture, and these vary from the simple to the complex. While
each approach has real value for understanding the social world
around us, we will opt for a simple version that still gives us
plenty to work with. As such, we begin with an understanding of
culture as the combined effect of humanly constructed social
elements that help people live together. We will explore four
elements of culture, illustrating each element through individual
and international political experience.

1. Common life practised in society

The first element of culture has to do with common or shared

life. While media reporting seems to constantly prioritise stories
of war, conflict and controversy, it is equally the case that local,
national and international society requires a remarkable degree
of cooperation. How do we live together? Common bonds can
sometimes be forged through family ties (as the saying goes,
‘you can choose your friends but you are stuck with your
relatives’), economic interests (‘what matters most is the colour
of your money’) or security concerns (‘the enemy of my enemy is
my friend’). Yet, there are other bonds that are forged at the
social level as peoples of difference find ways to live together in
the same space by forging common beliefs, habits and values. It
is from this practice of common life that culture often emerges.

Sport provides good examples of culture as common life. Let us

think about football (also known as soccer). Local football clubs
can be founded on distinct community identity. For example,
local Australian players from a Greek background can play for a
team sponsored by the Hellenic Association. Clubs can equally
represent a locality rather than a particular group. For example,
the Smithfield Stallions of Sydney might have individual players
from Greek, Ethiopian, British and Turkish background.
Regardless of background, at the international level all players
in these clubs have a loyalty to the Australian football team.
Football is the common bond – a sporting pastime but also
cultural practice. Think about the way entire nations can be
said to embody the activities of its national sporting heroes.
Supporters from different countries will identify their team as
playing in a certain style, even if these are stereotypes and not
entirely accurate: do all Eastern European teams play with
structure and discipline? Do all South American sides use
flamboyance and spontaneity? The larger point, for both
individuals and nations, is the tangible power of a sporting
pastime to generate common bonds from the local to the
international (Rees 2016, 179–182). That bond is an expression
of culture.

2. Symbols of group identity

The second element of culture are symbols of identity.

Constructing and interpreting ‘signs’ is a basic activity in any
society. The kinds of sign I am referring to are tangible
reminders in modern societies of who we are as a people. They
include styles of architecture (such as bridges or religious
buildings), land or waterscapes that influence the activity of life
(such as in harbour cities), monuments, flags and other identity
banners, styles of clothing and habits of dress, distinctive food
and drink – and so on. These signs are more than a tourist
attraction, they are symbols that inform members about who
they are as a group and that help the group live together
cohesively.

Consider, for example, the individual and international

significance of national flags as cultural symbols. For
individuals, a flag can be so powerful that citizens are prepared
to die on the fields of battle fighting for its honour, representing
as it does the ‘way of life’ of the nation. The Star-Spangled
Banner as the anthem of the United States of America describes
the power of a national flag to inspire individual and national
devotion. Written by Francis Scott Key in 1814 after he spotted
the symbol of America still flying following a night of fierce
British bombardment, Scott’s moving ode to freedom includes
the famous words, ‘O say does that star-spangled banner yet
wave; O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?’. The
answer for Key was yes, the flag symbolising defiance and the
promise of victory.

Equally, persecuted communities within a country might see a

national or regional flag as a symbol of oppression rather than
freedom, symbolising a dominant way of life that excludes them.
In all regions of the world nationalist groups fight for autonomy
or independence from a country or countries that surround
them, and do so under alternative flags that represent their own
cultural identity. The flag of the Canadian province of Quebec,
for example, employs religious and cultural symbols reflecting
its origins as a French colony in the new world. Quebec
nationalists campaigning for independence from Canada have
employed the flag in the promotion of French language, cultural
preservation and Quebecois identity. National separatist groups
worldwide are similarly inspired by symbols of culture they are
trying to preserve.

3. Stories of our place in the world

The third element of culture is the power of story. Like the

cultural use of symbols, societies need to tell stories. These
may be about individuals and groups, of events in the distant
and recent past, of tales of victory and defeat involving enemies
and friends – and so on. Such stories are told to reaffirm, or
even recreate, ideas of where that society belongs in relation to
the wider world. As such, stories are performances designed to
influence what we understand to be real (Walter 2016, 72–73).
Sometimes cultural difference can be most starkly understood
by the different stories societies tell about themselves. It is no
surprise, therefore, that ‘culture change’ often involves a
society accepting a different story about itself (or struggling to
do so) in order to embrace a new social reality or accept a new
view about its own history. Likewise, what is sometimes
referred to as a ‘culture war’ occurs when different stories clash
and compete for public acceptance (Chapman and Ciment
2013).

For example, indigenous (or ‘First Nations’) peoples readily, and

with significant justification, contest the stories of settlement
in countries like the United States, Australia, Canada and
elsewhere. In such places, national holidays can be mourned as
commemorating invasion and dispossession. New Zealand
offers somewhat of a contrast, with the story of the nation
including the drawing up of the Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840
between the British colonisers and the indigenous Maori tribes.
Although the terms of the treaty are still debated, particularly in
relation to ‘the lack of Maori contribution’ to those terms (Toki
2010, 400), they did grant Maori peoples rights of ownership of
their lands, forests, fisheries and other possessions. Such
ownership, as an attempt to uphold the sovereignty of the Maori
nation(s), was central to the preservation of their cultural story.
Sadly, this is not the history recounted by Australian indigenous
nations or most Native American tribes in the United States and
Canada. Taken together, these depictions of preservation and
loss illustrate the importance of language, ritual, place and
tradition in the cultural story at the individual and international
level.

4. Agreement on what is ‘good’

The fourth element of culture is the way a society decides what

it means to have ‘a good life’. Like living organs, societies
experience growth and decline, health and decay, fitness and
injury. Extending the analogy, we could say that culture is a way
to measure the psychological and emotional health of society.
The United Nations Development Programme regards ‘wellbeing’
and the ‘pursuit of happiness’ as fundamental to the sustainable
health of a society. The United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization regards ‘building intercultural
understanding’ via the ‘protection of heritage and support for
cultural diversity’ to be a priority for international peace and
stability. These descriptors reflect what individuals and
international societies believe is a healthy culture. As such,
culture involves agreement on the kind of things that are good
for society and can make it flourish. ‘Culture clash’ occurs when
different societies prioritise different understandings of what
those ‘good’ things are.

One of the leading frontiers of culture clash worldwide involves

the campaign for gender equality in areas such as education,
employment, reproductive and marital rights. The story of
Malala Yousafzai from northwest Pakistan reminds us of the
power of one individual to inspire an international response on
the vital issue of education for girls. When Malala was 12, and
inspired by her teacher father, she began to speak out for the
right to education, something that was becoming increasingly
restricted due to the influence of the Taliban in Pakistan. In
2012, although critically wounded, Malala survived an
assassination attempt at the hands of the Taliban and, on her
recovery, became a brave advocate for the many millions who
were being denied education due to certain cultural perceptions
about girls and their place in society. In 2014 she was co-
recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and dedicated her prize
money to the building of a secondary school for girls in
Pakistan. Malala’s story reminds us that culture is about the
way individuals and societies define what the ideal ‘good’ is and
the extent to which individual citizens like Malala, the global
networks inspired by her story, and even those like the Taliban
who oppose this vision are willing to campaign for what they
consider to be cultural rights.

Religion and culture: difference and similarity

We have explored elements of religion and culture and offered

various brief examples from an individual, national and
international perspective. While it has been important to
consider each concept separately, highlighting the particular
ways that religion and culture influence international relations,
there are clear interlinkages between them. Theorists have long
drawn such links and these are useful for our consideration
here. For example, the anthropologist Clifford Geertz famously
described religion as a ‘cultural system’ composed of myths,
rituals, symbols and beliefs created by humans as a way of
giving our individual and collective lives a sense of meaning
(Woodhead 2011, 124). Consider the similarities between the
elements of religion and culture described in this chapter such
as the role of symbols and stories in both accounts, and the
pursuit of life according to what either faith or culture
determine to be the higher standards of living.

An important question to ask is whether ‘culture’ should be

necessarily understood as the larger more significant category
in international relations, always casting ‘religion’ as a subset
within it. Such a view makes sense because no one religion
encompasses an entire society in the world today, and no
society lives entirely according to one set of sacred rules and
practices. On the other hand, in some contexts religious
authority and identity can be more significant than any other
cultural element. For example, when American soldiers moved
into the Iraqi city of Najaf in 2003 to negotiate security
arrangements, it was not the town mayor or the police chief that
had most influence. Rather, it was the reclusive religious leader
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, whose authority influenced not
only the city but much of the fracturing nation itself. Taking
another example, when Communist authorities confronted
striking dock workers in Poland in the 1980s, it was not only
unions that opposed them but also the Catholic Church, whose
priests performed sacred rituals and stood in solidarity with
strikers in open defiance of the government. In both these
examples, the elements of religion are equally – if not more –
prominent than the elements of culture. Perhaps the most
useful approach, therefore, is to see the elements of religion
and the elements of culture in constant interaction with one
another.

We have explored just four elements for each category. What

might some other elements be and what are the impacts of
these elements on individual and international life? There are
some excellent resources to assist us in exploring such
questions. These include an introduction to religion in IR by Toft,
Philpott and Shah (2011), an examination of religion in a
globalised world by Haynes (2012), a large compendium of
essential readings on religion and foreign affairs edited by
Hoover and Johnston (2012), and E-International Relations’
edited collection Nations Under God(Herrington, McKay and
Haynes 2015). However, the simple outline we have provided so
far will enable us to begin answering the ‘what’ and ‘how’
questions about religion and culture in global affairs and draw
some connections between them.

Can we all live together?

One of the most pressing questions related to our study is

whether religious and cultural actors and agendas have more of
a positive or negative effect on global affairs. As we have seen
above, these elements relate to some of the deepest levels of
human experience, both individually and internationally. Should
policymakers try to release the powerful energy of religio-
cultural identity for the sake of a better world, or should they try
to ‘keep a lid on it’ for fear of unleashing forces that might
damage our capacity to get along with others?

The value of a ‘both/and’ approach

The study of international relations shows that the answer may

be to draw on both strategies, since religio-cultural identity
inhabits a space somewhere between the problems of conflict
and the possibilities of cooperation. This approach can be seen
as an adaptation of Appleby’s influential idea of the
‘ambivalence of the sacred’ (2000) in which the elements of
religio-cultural politics we have explored above carry
simultaneously the potential for both violence and peace. The
usefulness of this approach is that it helps us to break free from
the restrictions of an ‘either/or’ logic about religion and culture
(i.e. either conflict or cooperation). Instead, we can focus on a
‘both/and’ analysis which allows individual and international
examples of each (i.e. both conflict and cooperation) to inform
us about the politics of religion and culture at the global level.
The influential scholar Martin E. Marty (2003) would add that
such an approach helps us to deepen our understanding of
world politics as it really is.

Therefore, with a ‘both/and’ logic in mind, we consider

comparative examples of religio-cultural identity in world
politics that emphasise conflict and cooperation respectively.
The number of alternative examples in IR is potentially
unlimited – so as you read on, keep in mind other instances
where the elements of religion and culture contribute to
violence and peacemaking.

Religion and culture create a ‘clash of civilisations’

When Soviet Communism finally collapsed in 1991, US president

George H. W. Bush heralded the beginning of a ‘new world
order’. In many ways this was an accurate description because
the conflict between the Soviet Union and the West had shaped
the dynamics of global affairs for half a century. But, what
would this new order look like? One answer was offered by
Samuel P. Huntington (1993), who suggested that world politics
would no longer be shaped by a clash of ideologies (e.g.
capitalism and communism) but rather by a ‘clash of
civilizations’. With this hypothesis, Huntington still assumed
that global politics would be shaped by conflict as much as the
Cold War before it had been. The significant shift in thinking was
the prominence that religious and cultural identity would play in
shaping the conflict. For Huntington, a civilisation was
understood as ‘a cultural entity … defined both by common
objective elements such as language, history, religion, customs,
institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people’
(1993, 23–24). Significantly, the descriptors Huntington gives to
the major civilisations have a cultural or religious link: ‘Western,
Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu and Slavic-Orthodox, Latin
American and possibly African’ (1993, 25).

Thus, the central tenet to Huntington’s controversial idea is that

those elements of culture and religion that we have studied in
this chapter contribute to fundamental differences across the
globe. This creates fault lines between individuals and peoples
who will inevitably fall into serious conflict over these deep and
abiding differences. Not surprisingly, Huntington’s ideas have
been both criticised and embraced. The phrase ‘clash of
civilisations’ came to popular prominence in 2001 as a way to
interpret the 9/11 attacks as a conflict between Islam and the
West. Although it is worth noting that the administration of
George W. Bush did not apply the notion in the way Huntington
proposed, scholars were using the phrase well prior to 9/11 and
today its applications vary considerably, from commentary on
Turkish politics to describing the tension of multicultural policy
in Western regional cities. Whatever the merits of these
examples (and hundreds like them) they illustrate how
Huntington’s thesis has become a way for politicians,
commentators and academics to frame conflicts in a changing
global landscape. Religion and culture are central to this
framing.

Religion and culture create a dialogue of civilisations

At the end of the Cold War, rather than assuming the

continuation of a conflict-driven world as Huntington did, some
saw the new world order as an opportunity to redesign the way
international affairs was conducted. What would such a politics
look like? Some policymakers imagined a world where multiple
actors – not just powerful states – could contribute to a
collective process of stability and accountability. Religio-
cultural voices were increasingly considered an important part
of this conversation.

Accordingly, an alternative approach to that of Huntington came

from a United Nations consultative group known as the World
Public Forum, which began an initiative in 2002 called the
Dialogue of Civilizations. Influenced by a 1997 proposal from
Iranian president Mohammed Khatami, the objective of the
Dialogue is to ‘combine the efforts of the international
community in protecting humanity’s spiritual and cultural values
… bringing the spirit of cooperation and understanding into the
daily lives of people from different cultures’. Thus, in stark
contrast to the clash of civilisations assumption that religion
and culture are causes of conflict, the Dialogue of Civilizations
deploys the same broad elements as resources for building
bridges between individuals and peoples in the development of
sustainable peace and cooperation.

What is the value of such a change? The ‘clash’ emphasises

religion and culture as an extension of politics based on power,
and one of the abiding problems of world politics is that some
states are (much) more powerful than others. The Dialogue of
Civilizations potentially offers a more equalising approach,
whereby religion and culture become an extension of politics
based on shared interests. Noting that religio-cultural
communities are often transnational rather than state-based,
the Dialogue’s emphasis on ‘spiritual and cultural values’ helps
to create an open-ended space for international cooperation
beyond the defensive power interests of states.

The importance of precise thinking

Which framework makes more sense to you? Does the rise of

religion and culture in international affairs encourage clash or a
dialogue? Do religious and cultural elements of politics enable
us to live together in cooperation or do they disconnect us in
ways that lead to conflict? Applying the logic that we introduced
at the start of this section, one answer is that elements of
religion and culture contribute to both clash and dialogue,
to both conflict and cooperation.

The benefit of this approach is twofold. First, it encourages us

to look closely at specific elements of religion and culture – as
we have done in this chapter – instead of forcing such complex
phenomena into a singular assumption about conflict or
cooperation. As Reza Aslan once commented, ‘Islam is not a
religion of peace and it is not a religion of war. It is just a
religion’ (PBS, 2009). This kind of ambivalent outlook allows us
to consider how the precise elements of religion and culture are
used in violent and peaceful ways.

Second, applying a ‘both/and’ logic requires us to consider

specific examples of international relations – as we have
attempted throughout the chapter – without stereotyping
religious and cultural traditions by pinning them to singular
events. When the shortcomings of religion were once brought to
the attention of the Hindu mystic Ramakrishna, he remarked
that ‘Religion is like a cow. It kicks, but it also gives milk’
(Tyndale 2006, xiv). For every cultural symbol of hate, we see as
many cultural symbols of healing and peace. For every religious
movement of violence, we see as many religious movements for
reconciliation.

This ‘both/and’ understanding of religion and culture has

become influential among policymakers working with
individuals, local communities, and national, regional and
international organisations, marking a significant shift in our
understanding of world politics as a whole. Beyond the issue of
peace versus violence, it has also helped us understand the
need for particular consideration about the extent of religious
and cultural influence on politics throughout the world. For
example, on religion, Jonathan Fox (2008, 7) writes:

A fuller picture of the world’s religious economy would show

secularisation – the reduction of religion’s influence in society –
occurring in some parts of the religious economy, and sacralisation –
the increase of religion’s influence in society – occurring in other
parts.
Cultural factors are similarly dynamic, both in influence and in
the forms they take. As James Clifford wrote, ‘“cultures” do not
hold still for their portraits’ (1986, 10), and as such the influence
of culture on individual and global politics requires precise
thinking.

Conclusion

In this chapter we set out to draw a diagram of religion and

culture in world affairs. The aim was to show that religious and
cultural factors matter if we want to deepen our understanding
of international relations. The method has been to define
elements of each concept and consider the impact of these
elements on aspects of our individual, national and international
experience. Hopefully, you are convinced that understanding
religious and cultural issues is necessary if you want to join
some of the most important discussions about world politics
today. There is little that concerns IR today that does not
involve elements of religion or culture, or both. Equally, it is
important to recognise as a final thought that we have only just
begun to explore these issues and we need to go deeper in our
consideration of the importance of religious and cultural actors
and interests. Understanding them will help us better
understand an ever more complex and divided world.

https://www.e-ir.info/2017/01/08/religion-and-culture/

Culture and Conflict

Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Copy Link Google Gmail Facebook
Messenger WhatsApp Reddit StumbleUpon Tumblr WordPress

By
Michelle LeBaron

July 2003

Culture is an essential part of conflict and conflict resolution. Cultures are like
underground rivers that run through our lives and relationships, giving us
messages that shape our perceptions, attributions, judgments, and ideas of self
and other. Though cultures are powerful, they are often unconscious,
influencing conflict and attempts to resolve conflict in imperceptible ways.

Cultures are more than language, dress, and food customs. Cultural groups
may share race, ethnicity, or nationality, but they also arise from cleavages of
generation, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, ability and disability,
political and religious affiliation, language, and gender -- to name only a few.

Two things are essential to remember about cultures: they are always changing,
and they relate to the symbolic dimension of life. The symbolic dimension is the
place where we are constantly making meaning and enacting our identities.
Cultural messages from the groups we belong to give us information about what
is meaningful or important, and who we are in the world and in relation to others
-- our identities.

Cultural messages, simply, are what everyone in a group knows that outsiders
do not know. They are the water fish swim in, unaware of its effect on their
vision. They are a series of lenses that shape what we see and don't see, how
we perceive and interpret, and where we draw boundaries. In shaping our
values, cultures contain starting points and
currencies[1]. Starting points are those places it
is natural to begin, whether with individual or
group concerns, with the big picture or
particularities. Currencies are those things we
care about that influence and shape our Additional insights
interactions with others. into culture and conflict are
offered by Beyond
Intractability project
How Cultures Work participants.
Though largely below the surface, cultures are a
shifting, dynamic set of starting points that orient
us in particular ways and away from other
directions. Each of us belongs to multiple cultures that give us messages about
what is normal, appropriate, and expected. When others do not meet our
expectations, it is often a cue that our cultural expectations are different. We
may mistake differences between others and us for evidence of bad faith or lack
of common sense on the part of others, not realizing that common sense is also
cultural. What is common to one group may seem strange, counterintuitive, or
wrong to another.

Cultural messages shape our understandings of relationships, and of how to

deal with the conflict and harmony that are always present whenever two or
more people come together. Writing about or working across cultures is
complicated, but not impossible. Here are some complications in working with
cultural dimensions of conflict, and the implications that flow from them:

Culture is multi-layered -- what you see on the surface may mask differences
below the surface.

Therefore, cultural generalizations are not the whole story, and there is no substitute
for building relationships and sharing experiences, coming to know others more deeply
over time.

Culture is constantly in flux -- as conditions change, cultural groups adapt in

dynamic and sometimes unpredictable ways.

Therefore, no comprehensive description can ever be formulated about a particular

group. Any attempt to understand a group must take the dimensions of time, context,
and individual differences into account.
Culture is elastic -- knowing the cultural norms of a given group does not predict
the behavior of a member of that group, who may not conform to norms for
individual or contextual reasons.

Therefore, taxonomies (e.g. "Italians think this way," or "Buddhists prefer that") have
limited use, and can lead to error if not checked with experience.

Culture is largely below the surface, influencing identities and meaning-making,

or who we believe ourselves to be and what we care about -- it is not easy to
access these symbolic levels since they are largely outside our awareness.

Therefore, it is important to use many ways of learning about the cultural dimensions of
those involved in a conflict, especially indirect ways, including stories, metaphors, and
rituals.

Cultural influences and identities become important depending on context.

When an aspect of cultural identity is threatened or misunderstood, it may
become relatively more important than other cultural identities and this fixed,
narrow identity may become the focus of stereotyping, negative projection, and
conflict. This is a very common situation in intractable conflicts.

Therefore, it is useful for people in conflict to have interactive experiences that help
them see each other as broadly as possible, experiences that foster the recognition of
shared identities as well as those that are different.

Since culture is so closely related to our identities (who we think we are), and
the ways we make meaning (what is important to us and how), it is always a
factor in conflict. Cultural awareness leads us to apply the Platinum Rule in
place of the Golden Rule. Rather than the maxim "Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you," the Platinum Rule advises: "Do unto others as they
would have you do unto them."

Culture and Conflict: Connections

Cultures are embedded in every conflict because conflicts arise in human
relationships. Cultures affect the ways we name, frame, blame, and attempt to
tame conflicts. Whether a conflict exists at all is a cultural question. In an
interview conducted in Canada, an elderly Chinese man indicated he had
experienced no conflict at all for the previous 40 years.[2] Among the possible
reasons for his denial was a cultural preference to see the world through lenses
of harmony rather than conflict, as encouraged by his Confucian upbringing.
Labeling some of our interactions as conflicts and analyzing them into smaller
component parts is a distinctly Western approach that may obscure other
aspects of relationships.

Culture is always a factor in conflict, whether it plays a central role or influences

it subtly and gently. For any conflict that touches us where it matters, where we
make meaning and hold our identities, there is always a cultural component.
Intractable conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the India-Pakistan
conflict over Kashmir are not just about territorial, boundary, and sovereignty
issues -- they are also about acknowledgement, representation, and
legitimization of different identities and ways of living, being, and making
meaning.

Conflicts between teenagers and parents are shaped by generational culture,

and conflicts between spouses or partners are influenced by gender culture. In
organizations, conflicts arising from different disciplinary cultures escalate
tensions between co-workers, creating strained or inaccurate communication
and stressed relationships. Culture permeates conflict no matter what --
sometimes pushing forth with intensity, other times quietly snaking along, hardly
announcing its presence until surprised people nearly stumble on it.

Culture is inextricable from conflict, though it does not cause it. When
differences surface in families, organizations, or communities, culture is always
present, shaping perceptions, attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes.

When the cultural groups we belong to are a large majority in our community or
nation, we are less likely to be aware of the content of the messages they send
us. Cultures shared by dominant groups often seem to be "natural," "normal" --
"the way things are done." We only notice the effect of cultures that are different
from our own, attending to behaviors that we label exotic or strange.

Though culture is intertwined with conflict, some approaches to conflict

resolution minimize cultural issues and influences. Since culture is like an
iceberg -- largely submerged -- it is important to include it in our analyses and
interventions. Icebergs unacknowledged can be dangerous, and it is impossible
to make choices about them if we don't know their size or place. Acknowledging
culture and bringing cultural fluency to conflicts can help all kinds of people
make more intentional, adaptive choices.

Culture and Conflict: How to Respond

Given culture's important role in conflicts, what should be done to keep it in
mind and include it in response plans? Cultures may act like temperamental
children: complicated, elusive, and difficult to predict. Unless we develop
comfort with culture as an integral part of conflict, we may find ourselves
tangled in its net of complexity, limited by our own cultural lenses. Cultural
fluency is a key tool for disentangling and managing multilayered, cultural
conflicts.

Cultural fluency means familiarity with cultures: their natures, how they work,
and ways they intertwine with our relationships in times of conflict and harmony.
Cultural fluency means awareness of several dimensions of culture, including

 Communication,
 Ways of naming, framing, and taming conflict,
 Approaches to meaning making,
 Identities and roles.
Each of these is described in more detail below.

Communication refers to different starting points about how to relate to and with
others. There are many variations on these starting points, and they are
outlined in detail in the topic Communication, Culture, and Conflict. Some of the
major variations relate to the division between high- and low-context
communications, a classification devised by Edward T. Hall.[3]

In high-context communication, most of a message is conveyed by the context

surrounding it, rather than being named explicitly in words. The physical setting,
the way things are said, and shared understandings are relied upon to give
communication meaning. Interactions feature formalized and stylized rituals,
telegraphing ideas without spelling them out. Nonverbal cues and signals are
essential to comprehension of the message. The context is trusted to
communicate in the absence of verbal expressions, or sometimes in addition to
them. High-context communication may help save facebecause it is less direct
than low-context communication, but it may increase the possibilities of
miscommunication because much of the intended message is unstated.

Low-context communication emphasizes directness rather than relying on the

context to communicate. From this starting point, verbal communication is
specific and literal, and less is conveyed in implied, indirect signals. Low-
context communicators tend to "say what they mean and mean what they say."
Low-context communication may help prevent misunderstandings, but it can
also escalate conflict because it is more confrontational than high-context
communication.

As people communicate, they move along a continuum between high- and low-
context. Depending on the kind of relationship, the context, and the purpose of
communication, they may be more or less explicit and direct. In close
relationships, communication shorthand is often used, which makes
communication opaque to outsiders but perfectly clear to the parties. With
strangers, the same people may choose low-context communication.

Low- and high-context communication refers not only to individual

communication strategies, but may be used to understand cultural groups.
Generally, Western cultures tend to gravitate toward low-context starting points,
while Eastern and Southern cultures tend to high-context communication.
Within these huge categories, there are important differences and many
variations. Where high-context communication tends to be featured, it is useful
to pay specific attention to nonverbal cues and the behavior of others who may
know more of the unstated rules governing the communication. Where low-
context communication is the norm, directness is likely to be expected in return.

There are many other ways that communication varies across cultures. High-
and low-context communication and several other dimensions are explored
in Communication, Culture, and Conflict.

Ways of naming, framing, and taming conflict vary across cultural boundaries.
As the example of the elderly Chinese interviewee illustrates, not everyone
agrees on what constitutes a conflict. For those accustomed to subdued, calm
discussion, an emotional exchange among family members may seem a
threatening conflict. The family members themselves may look at their
exchange as a normal and desirable airing of differing views. Intractable
conflicts are also subject to different interpretations. Is an event a skirmish, a
provocation, an escalation, or a mere trifle, hardly worth noticing? The answer
depends on perspective, context, and how identity relates to the situation.

Just as there is no consensus across cultures or situations on what constitutes

a conflict or how events in the interaction should be framed, so there are many
different ways of thinking about how to tame it. Should those involved meet face
to face, sharing their perspectives and stories with or without the help of an
outside mediator? Or should a trusted friend talk with each of those involved
and try to help smooth the waters? Should a third party be known to
the parties or a stranger to those involved?

John Paul Lederach, in his book Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation
Across Cultures, identifies two third-party roles that exist in U.S. and Somali
settings, respectively -- the formal mediator and the traditional elder.[4] The
formal mediator is generally not known to those involved, and he or she tries to
act without favoritism or investment in any particular outcome. Traditional elders
are revered for their local knowledge and relationships, and are relied upon for
direction and advice, as well as for their skills in helping parties communicate
with each other. The roles of insider partial(someone known to the parties who
is familiar with the history of the situation and the webs of relationships)
and outsider neutral (someone unknown to the parties who has no stake in the
outcome or continuing relationship with the parties) appear in a range of cultural
contexts. Generally, insider partials tend to be preferred in traditional, high-
context settings, while outside neutrals are more common in low-context
settings.

These are just some of the ways that taming conflict varies across cultures.
Third parties may use different strategies with quite different goals, depending
on their cultural sense of what is needed. In multicultural contexts, parties'
expectations of how conflict should be addressed may vary, further escalating
an existing conflict.

Approaches to meaning-making also vary across cultures. Hampden-Turner

and Trompenaars suggest that people have a range of starting points for
making sense of their lives, including:

 universalist (favoring rules, laws, and generalizations) and particularist

(favoring exceptions, relations, and contextual evaluation)
 specificity (preferring explicit definitions, breaking down wholes into
component parts, and measurable results) and diffuseness (focusing on
patterns, the big picture, and process over outcome)
 inner direction (sees virtue in individuals who strive to realize their
conscious purpose) and outer direction (where virtue is outside each of us in
natural rhythms, nature, beauty, and relationships)
 synchronous time (cyclical and spiraling) and sequential time (linear and
unidirectional).[5]
When we don't understand that others may have quite different starting points,
conflict is more likely to occur and to escalate. Even though the starting points
themselves are neutral, negative motives are easily attributed to someone who
begins from a different end of the continuum.[6]

For example, when First Nations people sit down with government
representatives to negotiate land claims in Canada or Australia, different ideas
of time may make it difficult to establish rapport and make progress. First
Nations people tend to see time as stretching forward and back, binding them in
relationship with seven generations in both directions. Their actions and choices
in the present are thus relevant to history and to their progeny. Government
negotiators acculturated to Western European ideas of time may find the telling
of historical tales and the consideration of projections generations into the
future tedious and irrelevant unless they understand the variations in the way
time is understood by First Nations people.
Of course, this example draws on generalizations that may or may not apply in
a particular situation. There are many different Aboriginal peoples in Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and elsewhere. Each has a distinct
culture, and these cultures have different relationships to time, different ideas
about negotiation, and unique identities. Government negotiators may also
have a range of ethno cultural identities, and may not fit the stereotype of the
woman or man in a hurry, with a measured, pressured orientation toward time.

Examples can also be drawn from the other three dimensions identified by
Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars. When an intractable conflict has been
ongoing for years or even generations, should there be recourse to international
standards and interveners, or local rules and practices? Those favoring a
universalist starting point are more likely to prefer international intervention and
the setting of international standards. Particularlists will be more comfortable
with a tailor-made, home-grown approach than with the imposition of general
rules that may or may not fit their needs and context.

Specificity and diffuseness also lead to conflict and conflict escalation in many
instances. People, who speak in specifics, looking for practical solutions to
challenges that can be implemented and measured, may find those who focus
on process, feelings, and the big picture obstructionist and frustrating. On the
other hand, those whose starting points are diffuse are more apt to catch the
flaw in the sum that is not easy to detect by looking at the component parts, and
to see the context into which specific ideas must fit.

Inner-directed people tend to feel confident that they can affect change,
believing that they are "the masters of their fate, the captains of their souls."[7]
They focus more on product than process. Imagine their frustration when faced
with outer-directed people, whose attention goes to nurturing relationships,
living in harmony with nature, going with the flow, and paying attention to
processes rather than products. As with each of the above sets of starting
points, neither is right or wrong; they are simply different. A focus on process is
helpful, but not if it completely fails to ignore outcomes. A focus on outcomes is
useful, but it is also important to monitor the tone and direction of the process.
Cultural fluency means being aware of different sets of starting points, and
having a way to speak in both dialects, helping translate between them when
they are making conflict worse.

These continua are not absolute, nor do they explain human relations broadly.
They are clues to what might be happening when people are in conflict over
long periods of time. We are meaning-making creatures, telling stories and
creating understandings that preserve our sense of self and relate to our
purpose. As we come to realize this, we can look into the process of meaning
making for those in a conflict and find ways to help them make their meaning-
making processes and conclusions more apparent to each other.

This can be done by storytelling and by the creation of shared stories, stories
that are co-constructed to make room for multiple points of view within them.
Often, people in conflict tell stories that sound as though both cannot be true.
Narrative conflict-resolution approaches help them leave their concern with truth
and being right on the sideline for a time, turning their attention instead to
stories in which they can both see themselves.

Another way to explore meaning making is through metaphors. Metaphors are

compact, tightly packaged word pictures that convey a great deal of information
in shorthand form. For example, in exploring how a conflict began, one side
may talk about its origins being buried in the mists of time before there were
boundaries and roads and written laws. The other may see it as the offspring of
a vexatious lawsuit begun in 1946. Neither is wrong -- the issue may well have
deep roots, and the lawsuit was surely a part of the evolution of the conflict. As
the two sides talk about their metaphors, the more diffuse starting point
wrapped up in the mists of time meets the more specific one, attached to a
particular legal action. As the two talk, they deepen their understanding of each
other in context, and learn more about their respective roles and identities.

Identities and roles refer to conceptions of the self. Am I an individual unit,

autonomous, a free agent, ultimately responsible for myself? Or am I first and
foremost a member of a group, weighing choices and actions by how the group
will perceive them and be affected by them? Those who see themselves as
separate individuals likely come from societies anthropologists call individualist.
Those for whom group allegiance is primary usually come from settings
anthropologists call collectivist, or communitarian.

In collectivist settings, the following values tend to be privileged:

 cooperation
 filial piety (respect for and deference toward elders)
 participation in shared progress
 reputation of the group
 interdependence
In individualist settings, the following values tend to be privileged:

 competition
 independence
 individual achievement
 personal growth and fulfillment
 self-reliance
When individualist and communitarian starting points influence those on either
side of a conflict, escalation may result. Individualists may see no problem with
"no holds barred" confrontation, while communitarian counterparts shrink from
bringing dishonor or face-loss to their group by behaving in unseemly ways.
Individualists may expect to make agreements with communitarians, and may
feel betrayed when the latter indicate that they have to take
their understandings back to a larger public or group before they can come to
closure. In the end, one should remember that, as with other patterns
described, most people are not purely individualist or communitarian. Rather,
people tend to have individualist or communitarian starting points, depending
on one's upbringing, experience, and the context of the situation.

https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/culture_conflict