"Real Men" and Diplomats: Intercultural Diplomatic Negotiation and Masculinities in China and the United States

Abstract

This paper develops a social identity approach to diplomatic negotiations that links research on gender and culture in negotiations by treating gender as an analytic category. By critically interrogating literature on diplomacy, negotiation, and masculinity in China and the United States and comparing hegemonic forms of masculinity and other ''ideal type'' gender and negotiator models, this suggests that in each culture:(1) dominant negotiating styles (generally integrativeF''win-win''For distributiveF''win-lose'') parallel dominant ideal typical males, (2) informal negotiating styles (reliance on personal relationships) parallel subordinate ideal typical females, and (3) creative negotiating tactics are possible by code-switching (changing relationship type and strategy style), or creatively reinterpreting existing models to address negotiation goals. This paper seeks to contribute to the literature by linking previously separate but related subfields (''gender and negotiation'' and ''culture and negotiation'' research), adding to existing research frameworks, and creating the opportunity for improved international diplomacy.

NegotiAuction: An experimental study

“…This auction concentrates not only on price and quantity, but also on non-price attribute-warranty. The following are cost schedules for the three suppliers of providing 1-year-10-year warranties and the valuation schedule of the buyer: 36. Furthermore, suppose that in the end, Supplier 1 and Supplier 2 are selected as the winners with market prices as 720 and 700 respectively and quantities as 70 and 30 respectively (such quantities completely meet the buyer's demand) supplier 1 will sell the product with warranty of 10 years and Supplier 2 will sell the product with warranty of 9 years.…”

“…The interaction process in negotiations may not be established in advance and the negotiation rules may be elicited in an implicit manner (based on tradition), especially for many face-to-face negotiations [36].…”

The Nature of Chinese Business Negotiation Behaviour: A Battlefield or a Gentlemen's Club?

“…Wu hrdina je charakteristický jak fyzickou silou (tělesná skladba, bojová umění, brutalita), tak "schopností odolat ženskému šarmu" a drží se ideologie "bratrství" k potlačení mužského soutěžení. Wen je charakteristický kulturní vytříbeností díky "dobrému vzdělání" a soutěživostí (Ruane, 2006). Hovoříme-li o kvalitách muže, je vhodné zmínit výraz "ťün-c'".…”

“…Je to mužský hrdina, který má pevně pod kontrolou své vztahy s ostatními a následně je dokáže brilantně využít v rámci "vztahové hry kuan-si" a přístupu wen/společné pátrání nebo wu/ mobilní válčení, tak aby dosáhl vytyčeného cíle (Ruane, 2006). Zatímco prvkům západního stylu vyjednávání výhra-výhra se svou povahou podobají prvky přístupu "společné pátrání" (jednání s civilizovaným partnerem), vyjednávání výhra-prohra má společné prvky s již zmíněným přístupem "mobilní válčení" (jednání s barbarem).…”

When Identity Matters: State Identity, Regional Institution-Building, and Japanese Foreign Policy1

“…Several scholars focus on the interactive relations between state identities and international‐level actors, addressing, for example, how international institutions, norms, and the environment shape state identities (Eyre and Suchman 1996; Varadarajan 2004), how international norms and domestic conceptions of state identities interact (Checkel 1999), and whether identity dynamics among states inevitably lead to conflicts (Mercer 1995; Gries 2005; Gartzke and Gleditsch 2006). Still, others look at identity from different angles, which include the construction of national identity (Bloom 1993; Hopf 2002; Callahan 2006), the feminist theory’s treatment of identity (Tickner 1997; Ruane 2006), and the relations between national identity conceptions and the political development of states (Dittmer and Kim 1993a). Finally, the concept of “collective identity,” originally introduced by Karl Deutsch four decades ago, was given a new life by Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnet (1998), which subsequently generated a variety of research projects on security and/or democratic communities (Risse‐Kappen 1996; Cronin 1999; Acharya 2001), the socialization of state agents (International Organization 2005), and collective‐identity formation (Wendt 1999:313–369, 2003; Kaelberer 2004).…”