Abstract

This paper discusses the “four-question” framework (Bland, Powell, & Ross, Barriers to dispute resolution: reflections on peacemaking and relationships between adversaries, 2012) that we and our colleagues developed in working to promote constructive dialogue and difficult compromises on the part of groups engaged in seeming intractable conflicts in Northern Ireland and Israeli/Palestine. The key feature of this framework is the need for the vision of a bearable shared future and commitment to pursue that future. Three other features of this framework are the need to build trust that commitments will be honored, the need for parties to understand and acknowledge the losses each will bear in accepting that future, and the need for the parties to settle for less than they feel justice demands, but also address the most serious current sources of injustice. This framework, we suggest, provides a useful lens for understanding and bridging the political divides apparent today in the US and many other democratic countries facing not only the economic threats and losses that globalization has imposed on vulnerable groups, but also threats and losses relating to weakening of community life and feelings of personal dignity We also discuss the phenomenon of loss aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, 2000) and its role in creating susceptibility to the rhetoric of hate-mongering populist leaders. We note the obvious need to provide a decent standard of living and greater security for the most vulnerable, but the further need to do so in a non-humiliating manner, and we also address the need to distinguish acceptable imperfect, difficult compromises from unacceptable ones.

Highlights

  • Our world today seems engulfed in crises—economic, environmental, and cultural, as well as political and military—that call for action

  • This framework, we suggest, provides a useful lens for understanding and bridging the political divides apparent today in the US and many other democratic countries facing the economic threats and losses that globalization has imposed on vulnerable groups, and threats and losses relating to weakening of community life and feelings of personal dignity We discuss the phenomenon of loss aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, 2000) and its role in creating susceptibility to the rhetoric of hate-mongering populist leaders

  • We begin this paper by briefly describing the role that globalization has played in creating political divisions, with a particular focus on “loss aversion” and other psychological barriers faced in meeting those challenges. ii We introduce a “four-question framework” that we developed with our colleagues at the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Our world today seems engulfed in crises—economic, environmental, and cultural, as well as political and military—that call for action. Within the United States, in the aftermath of the 2016 Presidential Election, the crisis most discussed is a political one. The country is said to be divided into two political camps and cultures. Many saw him as a dangerous demagogue ill-suited by temperament and qualifications to assume the powers and responsibilities of the Presidency, The second camp supported Trump. By contrast, won 2600 of the remaining 3000 counties, and handily won the support of blue-collar and other non-college educated voters.i. Most contemporary discussions of this divide cite the challenges created by globalization. We begin this paper by briefly describing the role that globalization has played in creating political divisions, with a particular focus on “loss aversion” and other psychological barriers faced in meeting those challenges. We begin this paper by briefly describing the role that globalization has played in creating political divisions, with a particular focus on “loss aversion” and other psychological barriers faced in meeting those challenges. ii We introduce a “four-question framework” that we developed with our colleagues at the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation

International Journal of Law and Public Administration
Deep Stories
Rivals or Enemies
Elaboration of the Four Questions
The Challenge of a Shared Future in a Globalized America
Building Commitment for the Pursuit of a Shared Future
Satisfying Demands for Justice versus Fostering Dignity
Populism as a Threat to the Pursuit of a Shared Future
The Pros and Cons of Compromise
Summing up
Conflict and Negotiation
Findings
Retrieved from
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call