The Role of Culture in Conflict Resolution

CASE OF DAGBON IN GHANA

The inter-relativity and connectivity of human endeavor has made conflict something unavoidable as it has come to eventually be part of the normal routine of human social interaction. Ethnic conflicts and civil wars continue to plague many African countries especially in the last two decades. There are growing concerns about the impacts of these conflicts on sub-regional and regional stability as well as security, with adverse implications on economic growth, environment and development. The impacts of these conflicts have been severest on the vulnerable groups such as the aged, women and children reversing many development efforts in conflict zones (John Kusimi; Julius Fobil; Raymond Atuguba; Isabella Erawoc; Franklin Oduro Abstract: Conflicts in Northern Ghana a Mirror of Answers to Sub-Regional Stability and Security Questions). Conflict has both a colloquial meaning and a discouragingly long list of specific definitions. The list includes four rather different usages if the term: (1) antecedent conditions to some overt struggle (2) affective states (tension or hostility) (3) cognitive states (for example the perception that some other person or entity acts against one’s interest and (4) conflictful behavior, verbal or non verbal ranging from passive resistance to active aggression. According to Wiktionary, conflict is an incompatibility of two things that cannot be simultaneously fulfilled. In simple terms conflict denotes a situation when two or more organizations or persons are in a contradiction between them…….. Conflict is more expansive than normally perceived. The conflict is a contradiction, a war, maybe a competition exist but the real conflict condition is more greatest way to express violence, and where this take place and violence take effect, it generate more and more conflicts.

Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning “to cultivate”) is a term that has different meanings. For example, in 1952, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of 164 definitions of “culture” in Culture: a Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. However, the word “culture” is most commonly used in three basic senses:

• Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture
• An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning
• The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group (Harper, Douglas (2001). Online Etymology Dictionary and Kroeber, A. L. and C. Kluckhohn, (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions)
• When the concept first emerged in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe, it connoted a process of cultivation or improvement, as in agriculture or horticulture. In the nineteenth century, it came to refer first to the betterment or refinement of the individual, especially through education, and then to the fulfillment of national aspirations or ideals. In the mid-nineteenth century, some scientists used the term “culture” to refer to a universal human capacity (C. Kluckhohn, (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions)

Although largely ignored as being a key element in the generation of conflicts, culture is an essential part of conflict and conflict resolution (LeBaron, Michelle Conflict and Culture: Research in Five Communities in British Columbia, Canada). Culture, mostly acting within the parameters of a toothless bulldog, it permeate all spheres of the normal daily occurrences and it does so in the least expected ways. It serves as collating avenue which sends us messages that shape our perceptions, attributions, judgments, and ideas of self and other. Cultures are powerful, they are often unconscious, influencing conflict and attempts to resolve conflict in imperceptible ways. For the single individual, cultures are a shifting, dynamic set of starting points that orient us in particular way 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 and thought or projected as un-respected. 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 not cultural. What is common to one group may seem strange, counter intuitive, or wrong to another. In the dividing circles of two groups, culture projects a huge sense of uniqueness; something most individuals would prefer to die for than to witness it degraded by the opposing group.

Whether a conflict exists at all is a cultural question, and by way of mutual illustration and interconnection between culture and conflict; cultures are embedded in almost every conflict because conflicts arise in human relationships. Cultures affect the ways we name, frame, blame, and attempt to tame conflicts. On the contrary, when any of the above is diverted by one cultural group vis-à-vis the other, conflicts are the emerging consequences. Most people especially in Africa and other parts of the globe take pride in engaging in activities with a cultural sense than advancing the course of the general good. 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.

For this reason, this essay seeks to reconcile the role of culture in the Dagbon conflict in Northern Ghana and how these same two connections of conflicts are again intertwined for the purposes of conflict and conflict resolution. The challenge is that, given cultures important role in conflicts, it is given little thought and consideration as it mostly labeled in the unconscious circle of human behavior vis-à-vis conflicts and some approaches cultural resolution to the management and resolution of the conflict compound this problem because they minimize cultural role and influences in the tensed situation. We will consider the Dagbon conflict in and try to fit it within this frame of neglect. This is because the Dagbon conflict although largely considered ethnic has a huge cultural dimension which goes largely unattended to. Culture is always a factor in conflict, whether it plays a central role or influences it subtly and gently.

Geographically and historically, Ghana lies between latitudes 50 and 110N and longitudes 10 and 30E with a landmass of 23.9million hectares. Ghana’s estimated total population is 19.5 million (GSS, 2002:1), comprising a vast mosaic of several ethnic groups speaking over hundred local languages. Northern Ghana on which this paper focuses is co-terminus with a vast acreage of land that spans the White Volta, Black Volta and Oti River Basins. The area is divided into three political/ administrative regions comprising the Upper West (18,476km2) and the Upper East(8,842km2) regions bordering Burkina Faso in the extreme northern limits of Ghana and the Northern Region (70,384km2) to the south of Upper East and Upper West. Populations in these areas witness deep poverty levels and low literacy rates, with low school enrolment rate and inadequate health care services. Over 90 percent of the population in this area is engaged in subsistence agriculture and animal rearing (GSS, (2002). Population and Housing Census 2000: Summary of Final Results). Therefore, land ownership determines to a large extent, the nature of social and power relations among the ethnic groups inhabiting these three regions and has also been a major source of conflicts among them. The three regions harbor inconceivable heterogeneous groups of people speaking over 30 local dialects. The hidden truth is that, most of these heterogeneous groups have historical connections dating back to the sixteenth century. The sociocultural organization of most of these peoples of the northern belt is patrilineal with a strong tradition of centralized administration under the lordship of a powerful king such as the Mossi-Dagbani Kingdoms. In recent national political discussions, the Mossi-Dagbani groups are referred to as the ‘major tribes’ in Northern Ghana. However, there are also stateless or acephalous groups such as the Konkomba and the Tallensi. Therefore politically and administratively, there are a lot of historical and present day commonalities. This is what causes and infact possesses the bane of shock when it comes to the issue of conflicts and the most effective tools in dealing or handling them. The past 25years have witnessed a number of destructive ethnic conflicts in Northern Ghana. The very explosive ones are those of 1980 (Konkombas against Nanumbas) and the Guinea Fowl War of 1994 (between the Konkombas on one hand and Nanumbas, Dagombas and Gonjas on the other hand) (Brukum J. N. K, The Pito, Mango and Guinea Fowl Wars: Episodes in the History of Northern Ghana, 1980-1999).

In 1980/86 and 2000, Mamprusis and Kusasis went to war in Bawku. Dagombas also fought among themselves; these and more are the most recent (and of which this essay critical look) of these intra-Dagbon clashes were those between the Andani and the Abudu Gates in Yendi, in 2002 (Brukum J. N. K, The Pito, Mango and Guinea Fowl Wars: Episodes in the History of Northern Ghana, 1980-1999).

There has been much similar communal violence among the Gonjas and other ethnic groups in the Northern Region of Ghana. A critical assessment of the causes of most of these conflicts can be traced to colonial and post-colonial actions of governments. This certainly is no news as the impedes of colonialism is still being felt in Africa today. Certain actions and in-actions of governments have led to the marginalization, deprivation, exploitation and the exclusion of the ‘minority groups’ in many decision-making processes and governance issues that affect them. This has led to dissatisfaction among the ‘minority’, hence any little dispute between the ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ explodes into ethnic conflict.

With these analysis deduced, let us now try to envisage how the presence of culture among the people in the northern hemisphere of Ghana is contributing to conflicts among the people using the silent pistol. Culture, as already noted, forms the core around which most individuals normalize their relations with others but this relationship does take a different dimension when one gets the slightest hint of foul play in the unique identification of the other individual. This however differs from ethnocentrism, where people openly act and portray the supposedly uniqueness of their traditional origin and heritage over that of others and to some extent cause others to follow their fray. It is important to state unequivocally that culture has a canny way of taking on the characteristics of ethnocentrism but however does with a gradual pace.

Due to the heritagecal and ancestral dimension of culture, conflicts resulting from culture and cultural practices do occur undetected for a very long time. Conflict of this nature sometimes begin from a mere proclaim which is interpreted to downgrade or cast the other side’s image into disrepute. At times it start with a poorly resolved dispute (in our case the Andani and the Abudu Gates in Yendi) which forces the youths of the opposing party to rise up in arms against their foes after several years of the poorly settled dispute, which obviously one party wasn’t satisfied with. When this happens, all possible gates of negotiations are closed due to the lengthy or at times the generational nature it usually takes to emerge in full scale. Recent political events and expression also mean the relaxation in conflict in one side and subsequent uprising in other with political transitions. In other words, the envisioned premise is ignoring the cultural dimension of conflicts by most Ghanaian governments with the impression that Ghana is the most peaceful nation on earth. Similarly, the lay magistrate often without really solving the dispute to any side’s satisfaction ended up taking sides. Culture, with the trait of a silent killer largely goes undetected due the stable political climate Ghana is reputed for but the critical thing that most conflict analysts fail to take into consideration is that conflicts of this nature are intra-tribal rather than taking on the general good or in the form of civil wars, which has stalled the core of most African country’s government setup and social development. In exact terms, a cursory look at all historical conflict on the African region reveals tremendous ethnic and religious inclinations, albeit many of them also have subtle causal relationship with land and resource use, which could be a core of protest of one group against the other.

The concept of nationhood/statehood is misplaced in many African nation state building contexts. Nations on the African continent, unconsciously motivated by the great diversity of ethnic groups, continue to trivialize national homogeneity and ethnic unification thus allowing for powerful disaggregated ethnic formations. The inevitable tendency of this phenomenon is that, many national policies by governments tend to be ethnocentric and is some unconscious instances cultural, which create suspicion, rivalry, discontent, mistrust and enmity among different ethnic groups or even within the same group of people as is the case in northern Ghana, resulting in ethnic conflicts and civil wars in extreme cases.

In the case under discussion, most analysts in conflict prevention turn to focus solely on the tribal or ethnic sentiments forgetting that there cultural influences even on professional judgments vis-à-vis the heated situation and culture prevent people from giving accurate feedback.

Causes of conflict in northern Ghana.

The Dagbon chieftaincy dispute is a good example of the passions that chieftaincy issues can inflame in Ghana, and of the extent to which these matters have become politicised. In the Dagbon case, a traditional matter has become the main subject of local politics as well as an issue of national politics. The Dagomba people or Dagbamba as they call themselves, constitute the single largest ethnic group in Northern Ghana. They speak the Dagbani language, a subgroup of the Mole-Dagbani family of languages, which belongs to the much larger Gur with starting the Dagbon migrations from Mali to what is now the Upper East Region of Ghana. Here he married Sihisabigu, the daughter of a Tindana in a place known as Bion, and eventually replaced the Tindana after assassinating him. Kpagunimbu and Sihisabigu had twin sons called Nyamzisheli and Nyarigili, who are believed to be the ancestors of the Talinsi and Nabdam ethnic groups of the Upper East Region. Following his exploits as a warrior, the King of Grumah, Abudu Rahamani married off his daughter, Suhuyini, to Kpagunimbu. Suhuyini gave birth to Gbewaa, two of whose sons Tohugu and Sitobu founded the Mamprugu and Dagbon kingdoms respectively. Sitobu’s son, Nyagsi, who reigned between 1416 and 1432, expanded the Dagbon kingdom through wars against aboriginal peoples throughout what is now present-day Dagbon. Thus the Dagbamba came to the area they now occupy as conquerors and established the traditional state of Dagbon, bringing with them the institution of chieftaincy, which had not been found among the original inhabitants. The Dagbon capital is Yendi where the King, whose title is Ya Na, resides.

The Dagbamba are strongly attached to the institution of chieftaincy, which partly accounts for the intensity with which conflicts over chieftaincy are carried out. Conflicts tend to revolve around questions of succession, since the rules for succession tend to be rather flexible and allow for a number of candidates. Part of the current dispute (known variously as the Dagbon conflict or the Yendi chieftaincy affairs) hinges on whether or not it is a rule of tradition that succession to the throne should alternate between two rival sections of the royal family. These two sections originated in the late nineteenth century, following the death of Ya Na Yakubu who was succeeded first by his son Abudulai and then by another son Andani. Since the death of Andani in 1899, there has been in some measure an alternation between descendants of the two brothers, and the extent to which this rotation constitutes another rule for determining the succession remains unsettled.

In addition to the question of rotation between the two families, there is also disagreement over who has the right to select a successor, and over which particular act in the installation ceremony makes one a Ya Na. Formally, the selection of a successor rested in the hands of four kingmakers. In 1948, the membership of the kingmakers was expanded to eleven with the addition of seven divisional chiefs to form a selection committee. The legitimacy of the Committee, which probably represented a final attempt by the British to codify the rules and procedures of succession to the Yendi skin, has been in dispute.

In the 1940s, the educated elite of Dagbon – most of whom were from its royal families – played a major role in the setting up of the controversial selection committee. The institution of the selection committee coincided with the era of active pre-independence politics, and the pioneer-educated elite was poised to exploit the situation. Having a king who was more amenable to their political ambitions was of vital importance to them. By 1954, there were complaints that the committee system was adopted to protect the interest of the Abudulai family and ultimately eliminate the Andani family from the contest (Sibidow, 1970).

One major source of conflict in modern times is the tradition that “you do not destool a Ya Na”. In former times, a Ya Na who proved unacceptable was simply killed. As this is no longer a practical alternative, once installed a Ya Na cannot be destooled even if he is found to have violated customs. Thus Dagbon custom as a whole is ambiguous on this point if not outright contradictory (Ladouceur, 1972). Such an implicit ambiguity facilitates the intervention of an outside power to settle outstanding disagreements as to the correct interpretation of tradition. It also serves not only to foment disputes but also to sustain them.

Another source of the Dagbon conflict is intergenerational in nature. Intergenerational conflict arises because of the exclusion from succession of the senior sons of a king by his junior brothers. Conversely, the junior brothers in the older generation could find themselves excluded by the sons of their senior brother. According to Ferguson et al. (1970), the critical nature of exclusion is apparent. By virtue of the Dagbon rule that no son may assume a higher rank in society than his father, a candidate’s failure to attain office carries with it the implication that none of his descendants may ever aspire to it. Intergenerational conflict appears then to be a structural feature for succession to higher office in Dagbon. There is, however, probably a contingent association between such conflicts and the polarization between rival factions that is also a characteristic feature of the conflict. The candidates from the senior generation may tend to attract the support of the more conservative factions and those from the junior generation, that of the more radical.

The Dagbon conflict gradually spilled over into the national political arena over the years as each side mustered what forces it could with politicians taking an increasing interest in this and other chieftaincy disputes. Each side in the Dagbon dispute has articulate well-educated spokesmen and, since 1954, prominent national political figures as well. It was largely through their activities that the dispute became a political issue shortly after independence. On the Abudu side was Alhaji Yakubu Tali, Tolon Na, while the Andani side had J.H. Alhassan. Both men had become prominent figures in both Dagbon affairs and in the emerging modern political system in the early 1950s. Both were elected to the Gold Coast Legislative Assembly in 1951 and to Parliament in 1954, the former on the opposition regional NPP ticket and the latter to the governing CPP.11

If politicians can make use of their power base in the modern political system to interfere in traditional affairs, some traditional rulers are also quite capable of seizing opportunities presented by national politics to consolidate their own positions. Ya Na Abudulai III, sensing that he might be destooled, withdrew his support for the opposition and together with his followers, including Alhaji Yakubu Tali, joined the then ruling party, the CPP, en bloc in 1958. Political interference in the Dagbon conflict continued with changes in government. The overthrow of the Kwame Nkrumah government in 1966 marked radical changes in official ideology and priorities. In general terms, the policy of the National Liberation Council (NLC), the military regime, in traditional matters was to restore chieftaincy to its former position and reduce government interference. However, chieftaincy affairs took on an added importance in post-coup Ghana and government interference increased instead of diminishing. In the case of the Yendi dispute, government interference was taken to new heights when in September 1969, the selection and enskinment of Ya Na Andani III was declared null and void by the NLC government. It was felt that a factor in this decision that had objectively benefited the Abudulai family was the presence of B. A. Yakubu, a family supporter, in the NLC government. Thus the murder of Ya Na Yakubu Andani II in March 2002 took place during a time when the NPP government, successor to Prime Minister K. A. Busia’s party which succeeded the NLC, was in power was seen as significant. It succeeded in evoking memories of the killings in the Gbewaa palace in 1969.

Zamfara state of the early Hausa kingdom. Drum history9, however, traces the origin of the Dagbon kingdom to ancient Mali whose king had been so impressed with the exploits of Toha-zhie, a wandering hunter, that he recruited him into his service. Toha-Zhie eventually married one of the daughters of the King of Mali called Paga-wobga, who bore him a son – Kpagunimbu. Kpagunimbu is credited

• In trying to capture the role of culture in conflict especially in the Ghanaian context, it becomes imperative to trace the root cause of the conflict, taking a cue from the cultural dimension and gradually interpreting it in the resolution process. The idea is that, conflict no matter the ferocity, scholarship must seek to stop it occurrence owing to it unenviable consequence on the larger populace.
• Thus there are two principal lines being the prime movers behind the culture-led conflicts among the northern hemisphere of Ghana. The first of such, which has been partially discussed on the geographical notations in starting this conflict, is without doubt actions of earliest colonial governments. Many ethnic groups in Northern Ghana hitherto the introduction of indirect rule in Ghana in 1932 peacefully co-existed. The indirect rule system of administration introduced in 1932 by the colonial governors (Britain) vested political and administrative powers in the hands of some selected chiefs who had better organized systems of traditional administration (the chiefly people, i.e. Dagomba, Nanumba, Gonja etc.). For instance, the Ya-Na of East-Dagbon was given traditional cum administrative authority over the Konkomba and Chokosi who is quite culturally different ethnic from the Dagomba. The north-eastern Province (present day Upper East) was constituted into the Mamprugu Kingdom with five sub-divisions as Mamprugu, Kusasi, Frafra, Gurensi and Builsa all under the Lordship of the Nayiri as the paramount chief of Mamprusi. Similarly, the Nawuri, Nchumuru, Mo and Vagala were put under the Yagbonwurura of Gonja kingdom.

This administrative initiative was implemented by Chief Commissioner Armitage. This was done for political and administrative expediency because the colonial administration at the time did not have sufficient logistics and personnel to govern the entire colony, especially the protected territories in Northern Ghana. Subsequently, there was the introduction of local police called “Nana Kana”, who constituted tribunals and for the collection of taxes and tried general cases except criminal ones. This enhanced the loyalty of the stateless ethnic groups to the paramount chiefs.

• The creation of the National Territorial Council (NTC) in 1938 for chiefs further increased the administrative authority of these chiefs. According to colonial writers such as Blair, Rattray, Tait, Cardinalland Manoukian, although the colonial administration imposed chiefs for administrative purposes, the acephalous people never accepted them, thus, they were never ‘ruled’ by the chiefly peoples, but were only raided periodically. The chiefly groups extorted monies from the stateless groups as fines, especially through the chiefly court system.

The implication of these developments are that, with time emotional sentiments and passions are brought to bear with general official arrangements which gradually leads one side to call for changes. If the call is not heeded by the authorities involved, one side feels cheated and with the lapse of time lead to ethnic based but largely culture oriented conflict.

• According to Tait, Dagomba ‘rule’ was limited to sporadic raids to obtain slaves needed for the annual tribute to the Ashanti. From time to time, local tax collectors were sent to Konkomba territory to collect foodstuff such as millet, sorghum, yam, and maize, which was sold in the markets to raise money for the local chief. In 1950, some Konkombas were stopped by Dagombas on their way to Yendi market and their head-loads of new yam taken (which was valued at £18), and in the same year when the Ya Na was fined in the District Commissioner’s court, two lorry loads of sorghum were collected in Saboba region alone on the grounds that, ‘The European says that it has got to be paid’. Also according to Skalnik (1983 in Katanga,1994, pp21), Konkomba marriage disputes accounted for a large source of income for the court of the Bimbilla-Naa. Thus it became very rare for a Konkomba to appeal to the District Commissioner on cases of injustices, though instances of this sort of extortion were frequent.
• Similarly, the lay magistrate often without really solving the dispute to any side’s satisfaction took bribes from both parties. The cumulative effect of this was total allegiance of these non-chiefly tribes to the chiefly groups.
• The Konkombas for instance were compelled to give some days as free labor annually in the farms of Nanumba/Dagombas chiefs and the compulsory donation of a hind leg of any big animal killed wild or domesticated to Nanumba chiefs. Probably the most unfair of these injustices was that, Konkombas were not allowed to settle even petty quarrels among themselves including matrimonial ones, even as late as the 20th century. These conditions compelled Konkombas to request for their own tribunal under Ali, an ex-soldier, domiciled in Bimbilla, to settle petty disputes particularly marriage cases. This proposal was vehemently rejected and attempts were made to eject Ali from Bimbilla, culminating into a heated atmosphere (Brukum, 1999:11-12).
• Another crucial notation is post colonial government arrangements both internal and external in Ghana’s northern region. Several uncharacteristic and unscrupulous actions of post-colonial governments saw a further deterioration in the social friction between the chiefly and non-chiefly ethnic groups which were largely operated by land administration policies. All lands in Northern Ghana were protected and were under the custody ownership of the Tendaanas (Earth-shrine Priest) and not chiefs. The chief (Na or Ubor) in the north wielded only political power. The Tendaana was the highest office held by the autochthonous tribes, and consisted legitimate ownership of the land which even extended over chiefs. The Na/Ubor never dared to arrogate to himself, the duties of the Tendaana. Infact, the Na/Ubor humbled himself before him and appeared disguised as poor when occasions arose for him to visit the Tendaana. This is because the Tendaana not only owned the land, but he is the only person known to the spirit of the land. Hence it was the Tendaana that had the right to give out lands. It was believed that, the Chief did not grant farming lands to individuals. He is considered not to have any right over farms. Tindaamba (another name for Tendaana) still have power over chiefs and are feared. During this era, land was not a scarce resource and according to Goody under such conditions neither individuals nor kin groups bother to lay specific claims to large tracts of territory, since land is virtually a free good (Katanga, 1994:21).
• Land ownership in northern Ghana came under the custody of chiefs in 1978 during the Acheampong regime when a law was passed vesting all northern lands into the hands of selected ethnic groups chiefs (notice the connection of the emergence of the intra-ethnic conflict between the Abudu and Andani Gates which will take several years to assume full scale) and left out most other groups. The criteria for vesting the lands in the hands of these few chiefs were based on the recommendations of Alhassan Report of 1978, which were backed by the Minister for Lands and Mineral Resources, both Dagombas (another watchful area, dealing with culture’s involvement in conflict). Indeed the Alhassan Committee’s Report twisted the truth about the land tenure arrangements in Northern Ghana in favor of the chiefs and his tribesmen and the other chiefly people. These reforms in Northern Ghana Land administration were implemented by the then Government to solicit for political support from the Northern Chiefs for the UNIGOV System (Unity Government). With the failure of the Acheampong government however, these legislations were abrogated as the reins of government was overtaken by another military regime.
• The ceasure of the reins of government and the subsequent decree rule reversed this trend of land principles laid down by the previous administration and has ever since been the bane of confrontation between brothers in the different sides of the same group as is the case of the Dagbon conflict. The Konkomba Youth Association (KOYA) contested the Alhassan Report and has repeatedly pointed out that, the report has been the root cause of the three major ethnic conflicts and twenty minor ones between the chiefdoms. The jejune with these quack legislations is that they turn to outlive their significance with the transition of government, something that is purely not in the interest of the rural Ghanaian.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to conflict resolution, since culture is always a factor. Cultural fluency is therefore a core competency for those who intervene in conflicts or simply want to function more effectively in their own lives and situations. Cultural fluency involves recognizing and acting respectfully from the knowledge that communication, ways of naming, framing, and taming conflict, approaches to meaning-making, and identities and roles vary across cultures.

In retrospect, culture as a key factor in conflict generation and orientation it that of a silent creeper. The kind that is in no way given premise by conflict analysts as being the prime cause in conflict situations. In the other words, the largel