The purpose of this literature review is to examine the role different cultures of parties plays in mediation. By comparing and contrasting different approaches to understanding the role of different cultures in mediation we can find approaches on how to build fruitful understanding and communication between parties of different cultures The base of this literature review will be the application of the well acknowledged Hofstede Model for Intercultural Dimensions[1] and exploring its importance as well as limitations as a tool for understanding the role of culture in mediation.

Mediation and Culture

Michal Albertstein explains that in a theoretical scheme, the ‘mediator identity’ is often surrounded by lawyers and therapists trying to produce a pragmatic and therapeutic approach to mediation. However, Albertstein explains that in contemporary mediation we also have the third professional identity seen as the ‘anthropological social therapist or visionary’ , which sets out that mediation as a approach that can be ‘manipulated and reconstructed through storytelling and narratives’.[2] The purpose of the project Trust MEdiators is to explore this third identity of mediation to understand how storytelling and narratives can help us become better mediators with an understanding for intercultural mediation.

Culture Definition

For the purpose of this literature review it is important to define what culture means in order to assess its role in mediation. This literature review will be based on the Hofstede Insights[3] definition that culture is ‘the collective mental programming of the human mind which distinguishes one group of people from another and influences patterns of thinking which are reflected in the meaning people attach to various aspects of life and which become crystallised in the institutions of a society’[4]. This definition is valuable to the literature review due its broad scope of categorization, which allows us to analyse all relevant elements that might influence the mediation process.

 Building on the abovementioned definition of culture is the more specific view defined by Anthony J. Marsella, professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii, who sets out that the concept ‘culture’ is ‘a shared learned behaviour and meanings that are socially transferred in various life-activity settings for purposes of individual and collective adjustment and adaptation’. Relevant to the field of mediation, he also lists important internal elements of culture such as ‘values, beliefs, attitudes, axioms, orientations, epistemologies, consciousness levels, perceptions, expectations and personhood’, which are relevant to analyse in order to understand a persons culture in mediation.

The Hofstede Model

One of the most recognized tools in comparing and contrasting behaviour across cultures is the Hofstede Model[1], which analyses the dimensions of culture by looking at  six basic issues:

1.      Power Distance - the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.

2.      Individualism - the extent to which people feel independent, as opposed to being interdependent as members of larger wholes

3.      Masculinity - the extent to which the use of force in endorsed socially

4.      Uncertainty Avoidance - deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity.

5.      Long Term Orientation - deals with the level of need for preparing for change in the future

6.      Indulgence – deals with how we view freedom and restriction in a society[2]

Although the Hofstede Model is a commonly used tool to analyse intercultural dimensions, it is limited to comparing and contrasting how these dimensions function across different nationalities. It would therefore be hard to analyse how the dimensions impact people if the more relevant aspect in an intercultural mediation is related to other cultural aspects such as subcultures or gender.

 However, Mediator and Alternative Dispute Resolution lecturer, William Cornet, sets out in his article on ‘Conlfict and Culture’ the importance of the Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Theory in relation to dealing with ethnicity and gender in mediation as we ‘ought to understand the intercultural phenomenon and inter-cultural approaches, which tend to acknowledge and accept cultural pluralism as an element of society, foster a society where citizens enjoy equal rights and equality and develop harmonious relations between different ethnic groups’[3]. An example is how the Hofstede model can look at the relation between masculinity and femininity across cultures and therefore be used as a tool to understand the ‘distribution of emotional roles between the genders’[4] in a specific culture. Cornet also argues that ‘competent, well trained mediators can and should mediate any dispute between people of different culture, ethnicity and gender’ and that ‘to avoid any misunderstanding or disparity in mediated outcomes, sometimes it is recommended to have co-mediators from different culture or gender for a well-balanced mediation’.[5]

 Cornet uses this claim to dismiss the suggestions by scholars that traditionally disadvantaged groups ‘fare worse in mediation because bias and prejudice will be more likely to emerge and produce unfair results’[6]. However, this opinion does not take into that there might be different reasons why disadvantaged groups fare worse in mediation, such as the role of their belonging to this disadvantaged group might have on their internal culture and therefore aspects listed by Anthony J. Marsella such as values, beliefs and attitudes. As an example, a person from a disadvantaged group might have less trust in the legal system (and therefore also mediation as a legal tool) than another person with the same nationality due to their experience with the lack of protection of their human rights in their country. This ties into Marsella’s argument regarding the importance of cultural considerations and sensitivities in conflict mediation as he sets out that ‘by ignoring culture in the mediation of conflicts, the opportunities for understanding, compassion and empathy are reduced or negated’.[1] Due to Marsella’s broad definition of culture, the Hofstede model could be seen as a useful to understanding perspectives in different nations, but could not in this view act as the only tool for understanding differences in cultures of parties to a conflict.

[1] https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/

[2] Forms of Mediation and Law: Cultures of Dispute Resolution MICHAL ALBERSTEIN https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/159567626.pdf

[3] https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/

[4] https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/

[5] https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/

[6] https://geerthofstede.com/culture-geert-hofstede-gert-jan-hofstede/6d-model-of-national-culture/

[7] https://www.mediate.com/articles/cornet-conflict.cfm

[8] ibid.

[9] ibid.

[10] ibid.

[11] Marsella, A. J. (2005). Culture and conflict: Understanding, negotiating, and reconciling conflicting constructions of reality. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 651–673 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176705001306