The techniques and practices of Alternative Dispute Resolution are used with the goal of resolving the issue in a manner that is mutually beneficial and outside of traditional litigation. Both sides of the parties agree on their behalf to resolve the conflict through a more direct and coherent method rather than the complex and slower process of court hearing. Therefore, for the ADR practice to become successful, a certain degree of sympathetic value must be present between the parties.

This gives rise to the notion of Cultural Sensitivity or Competence in Dispute Resolution and ADR practices. The concept is built on respecting diverse cultures and recognising both the differences and commonalities that exist between them. This concept not only helps society but also plays a pivotal role in conflict resolution practices.

What is Cultural Sensitivity ?

The concept of Cultural Sensitivity refers to the ability to acknowledge, recognise, and respect the differences and similarities in the various cultural backgrounds. It can be considered to be a state of mind where the person is aware of the different or similar aspects on which people are judged. This idea promotes the appreciation of diversity in society and acceptance among communities. We usually see this reflected in neutral establishments such as educational institutions, healthcare sectors, tourism, etc.

Cultural Sensitivity can be observed in our everyday life and consists of using respectful language towards an individual regarding their cultural norms, respecting religious practices,
impartiality in matters of culture, avoiding any kind of stereotype towards any group of people, and social interaction based on their customs. These are just some of them.

The application of Cultural Sensitivity is often regarded by scholars as a marker of societal progress. It removes the barriers and helps bring prosperity through mutual cooperation. In
today’s world, when the majority of the conflicts are the result of religious or social feuds, this concept can help bridge those gaps and lead to a better society.

Cultural Sensitivity in ADR Practices

The view of Cultural Sensitivity is a crucial element/aspect of making any Arbitration or Mediation successful The factor of cultural norms, practices, and beliefs has great importance to the parties and influences the conflict between them considerably. Their cultural differences play a prominent role in determining whether the ADR would be successful or not. Hence, the practitioner needs to try and understand their cultural background and facilitate cordial communication between the parties.

The following are some examples and instances where culture comes into play in dispute resolution and how the issue can be solved through Cultural Sensitivity.

1. An individual’s cultural background has played a great role in developing their perception. The norms and values shape how they interpret the conflict and approach it. While some cultures believe in direct confrontation between the parties to resolve the dispute, others tend to avoid direct communication between them and opt for a rather harmonious method. Different negotiation techniques are also employed by different cultures. Other than this, culture also shapes your perception about law, authorities, and individuals, which can also influence how they decide to resolve the dispute. This can lead to misinterpretation among the parties due to their varied norms and can pose an issue to the practitioner. Hence, with the introduction of the idea of Cultural Sensitivity, the practitioner can bring forth a common ground for conflict resolution so that one’s cultural sentiments are not hurt.

2. Stereotypes and unconscious biases form an integral part when dealing with cross-cultural disputes. Stereotypes are defined as the generalised views and beliefs towards any culture, which are oversimplified and assumed to be characteristic of every member. These generalised views influence how an individual from different cultural backgrounds perceives or interacts with the people of that culture. The dispute resolution professionals must try and avoid addressing such stereotypes, as they can easily offend members of that culture and escalate the tensions that complicate the issues already present. Through introducing a sense of cultural competence between the parties, one can prevent them from showing any stereotypes or biases, which fosters far healthier communication.

3. Power dynamics Cultural Dynamics and hierarchy in a cultural setting can also be a defining factor when discussing the influence of culture on conflict resolution. In some cases, parties from dominant cultures may wield unfair power and influence, which may disadvantage the marginal cultural group. It is the responsibility of the practitioner in such cases to identify and address these dynamics so that the judgement given is fair and that proper justice is served in the ADR Proceedings.

4. The cultural group can even influence the style of mediation or negotiation an individual employs and how they may choose to mediate or negotiate. As we discussed before, the cultural norms and values shape the perception of the individual greatly. Hence, there are various norms in every culture that dictate how they tend to resolve any dispute or conflict. Some choose to resolve through cooperation and association, while others are far more competitive and assertive. One has to be aware of such norms, especially when dealing with cross-cultural conflicts. It is essential for the mediators or negotiators to understand such different styles of negotiation to actively facilitate a peaceful dialogue.

Instances of Cultural Sensitivity in Dispute Resolution

There have been multiple situations where the idea of cultural sensitivity was applied in dispute resolution in order to end a feud raised due to any cultural conflict rooted in religious differences or language barriers.

In the Indian Context, a very prominent example of such an instance is the action of the Indian Government in acting as the mediator between the Meitei and Kuki-zo communities in the recent Manipur ethnic disputes. The cause for this violence was how the Chief Minister, Biren Singh, was showing a bias towards his native community, the Meitei, and even disproportionately providing Scheduled Tribes status to the Meitei tribe, the predominant community that lives in the region of Imphal Valley. This sparked a protest from the Kuki-Zo community, which was the minority and lived in the Hills near Imphal. This led to a rise in conflict between the two communities, which went on for months. Finally, the Government of India stepped in to resolve the issue. Firstly, they accepted the request of the Kuki-Zo community and made CM, Biren Singh, resign from his post. Thereafter, they conducted dialogues between the representatives of both communities to reach a common ground solution. The government made sure that any cultural sentiment was not hurt and the decision was approached peacefully.