Conflict – Page 3 – understand-culture

Sacco and Vanzetti

The Sacco and Vanzetti trial had a profound influence on American perceptions of conflict resolution by exposing the limitations and vulnerabilities of the open hearing system when prejudice and social tensions are present.

Public Hearing as a Double-Edged Sword: The trial was highly public, with both defendants and accusers present, embodying the American expectation that justice is served through open hearings where all sides confront each other. However, the proceedings revealed how such openness could be compromised by widespread nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment, leading to a process where the accused were judged as much for their background and beliefs as for the actual evidence against them.

Exposure of Systemic Bias: The case became an emblem of injustice, demonstrating that even in a system designed for fairness through open confrontation, outcomes could be deeply affected by societal prejudice. The trial and its aftermath showed that “who you are and, in this instance, what you believe, has an enormous amount to do with how you’re treated by the judicial system”.

Catalyst for Reform and Debate: The public outcry and international attention the case generated led to calls for legal reforms, such as changes in Massachusetts law to allow the Supreme Court to review facts in death penalty cases, rather than only procedural matters. The trial forced Americans to confront foundational questions about equality, fairness, and the role of bias in conflict resolution.

Symbol of Ongoing Debate: Sacco and Vanzetti’s case turned into a rallying point for those seeking to combat injustice and prejudice, and it remains a touchstone in debates about the American justice system, open hearings, and the treatment of minorities and dissenters.

In summary, the Sacco and Vanzetti trial revealed both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the American approach to conflict resolution through open hearings, highlighting that true justice requires not only procedural openness but also vigilance against bias and prejudice within the system.

Erin Brockovich

Erin Brockovich (2000): A legal assistant investigates a company accused of contaminating a town’s water supply. The film shows the process of collecting documents, interviewing witnesses, and building a case that combines both objective facts and personal stories. The resolution depends on both documentary evidence and the lived experiences of affected residents, reflecting the American balance of facts and testimony.

Judge Judy

Judge Judy (and other courtroom reality shows). Real-life small claims cases are presented before Judge Judy Sheindlin, who listens to both parties, examines evidence, and cross-examines witnesses before issuing a binding verdict. Judge Judy’s approach epitomizes the American manager-as-judge logic: she considers both objective facts (documents, receipts, contracts) and subjective testimony (personal accounts, explanations) before making a decision.

Law & Order

Law & Order (and spin-offs): Each episode follows the investigation of a crime (gathering evidence) and the subsequent prosecution in court, where lawyers and judges weigh facts and witness statements. The series consistently shows the process of building a case with hard evidence while also scrutinizing the credibility and motives of witnesses, mirroring the American business approach to resolving disputes.

Kollegenschwein

Der Kollege, the colleague, masculine. Die Kollegin, the colleague, feminine. Das Schwein. The pig, neutral. Kollegenschwein, the colleague-pig. That translation doesn’t really work in English. So what is a Kollegenschwein?

Well, in the German work context it’s a colleague who escalates a conflict between two colleagues or within the team too early, too quickly, too hastily up to the next management level, meaning up to the team-lead.

“Wait, what’s wrong with escalating a conflict to the next level so that that level can mediate and resolve the conflict? That’s one of the things that management gets paid for.” An American would ask that question. And perhaps someone from another business culture. But not someone in the German business context. Because Germans only escalate a conflict as a option of last resort. And why is that?

For one, you never know how the next level management will react, will resolve the conflict. It could be an outcome much worse that continuing to attempt to work things out amongst yourselves.

Gehe nicht zu Deinem Fürst, wenn Du nicht gerufen wirst. A well-known German figure of speech. Translation: Do not go to the nobility running your village-town-territory, if you have not been called to do so.

Secondly, escalating a conflict to the next level in Germany is a sign that you and your colleague were not able to resolve your problems among yourselves, at your working level. It’s a sign of failure.

Third, escalation can be seen by next level management’s peers as a sign that that manager does not have their team under control, that they are not managing the team well. In other words, escalation embarrasses the boss.

A Kollegenschwein is seen as a Petzer, as a tattle-tail, a rat. Petzen, to tattle, to snitch, to squeal. Oink, oink!

Das letzte Schweigen

Das letzte Schweigen (The Silence, 2010). A crime thriller where a girl’s disappearance echoes a decades-old unsolved murder. The film follows detectives as they meticulously gather evidence, revisit past testimonies, and reconstruct the sequence of events. The narrative is structured around the gradual revelation of facts, mirroring the German logic of resolving conflict through objective investigation and analysis.

Namibia

Der vermessene Mensch (Measures of Men, 2023). This recent film confronts Germany’s colonial past and the genocide of the Herero and Nama in Namibia. It reconstructs historical events through the lens of a German ethnologist, using documentary evidence and personal testimony to explore the causes and consequences of colonial violence. The film’s structure emphasizes the importance of historical documentation and objective analysis in understanding and reconciling with the past.

“rubble film”

Die Mörder sind unter uns (The Murderers Are Among Us, 1946). This is one of the first German films made after WWII and a classic of the “rubble film” (Trümmerfilm) genre. Set in the ruins of Berlin, it follows a traumatized doctor who discovers that a former Nazi officer responsible for atrocities is living unpunished among the survivors. The film centers on the protagonist’s moral and psychological investigation into the past, piecing together evidence and memories to confront personal and collective guilt. It dramatizes the process of uncovering the truth about wartime crimes and seeking accountability, embodying the German approach of reconstructing causes and circumstances

Deutschland 83 86 89

Deutschland 83 / Deutschland 86 / Deutschland 89: This acclaimed spy thriller trilogy follows a young East German border guard who is sent to West Germany as an undercover spy during the Cold War. The series meticulously reconstructs the political, social, and personal factors driving East-West tensions. Characters constantly seek evidence—through espionage, surveillance, and analysis—to understand motivations and prevent escalation. The narrative emphasizes cause-and-effect and the critical role of information in resolving or escalating conflict.

both sides

“Let’s hear both sides of the story.” Emphasizes the importance of considering all perspectives—objective facts and subjective witness accounts—before making a decision.