Response to Diamant's “Conflict and Conflict Resolution in China”

Abstract

In his colorful article and Conflict Resolution in China: Beyond Mediation-Centered Approaches, Neil Diamant emphasizes that mediation is but one of several conflict resolution methods in China. Furthermore, he notes that there are differences among the Chinese about the preferred method of conflict resolution. Focusing principally on marriage disputes, Diamant interviewed various judges, mediators, and bureaucrats who were responsible for handling marital disputes in urban and rural areas of China. He also examined newspapers and archives in both areas. His first conclusion is that many disputants do not take their conflicts to mediation because the mediators lack legitimacy. The mediators, it is reported, are occasionally impatient, act blindly, wish to receive personal credit, seek status, and are petty and out of touch with the younger generation. When they do seek mediation, some disputants fail to receive this service. Some mediators, we are told, do not mediate because they lack confidence, are afraid of the hassle, or are incapable of handling marriage problems. Others are reluctant to mediate for fear of making enemies of one side or neglect mediation and kick the cases into the courts because they are not paid for their mediation services. Finally, some do not mediate extensively because they are overburdened. Diamant contends that class and gender are the principal factors responsible for the differences in conflict resolution preferences of the Chinese. With regard to class, he notes that peasants and workers make heavier use of the courts than do the more educated or elite. The latter groups tend to keep their problems to themselves or agree to some nonconfrontational methods of conflict resolution. Nobody seems to use mediation.