My point is that when you
say the social scientists are supposed to “reveal what the conflicts
are really about” You are saying also that they have the power
to say what the conflicts are about and force or persuade others to
incorporate that opinion. What if two parties establish for
themselves that it is about survival. By what power does anyone
have to dictate that that is not the nature of the
conflict?
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.24.1505 MDT)
Jim Dundon 06.24.07.1644 edt –
I didn’t say they would “reveal” the nature of the conflict –
just find out what it is. The best way to do this is to interview the
conflicting parties. I would not expect the conflicting parties to be any
clearer in their minds about what the conflict really is than individuals
are when they experience internal conflicts. A lot of questioning and
exploring is needed. Usually there is more than one conflict, and only
one can be examined at a time. Often you have to ask, “If this
conflict were resolved, would everything be all right?” and the most
probable answer is “no.” Then you have to go on looking. I
don’t want to prescribe a formula here. The details have to be worked out
as you go.
What if two
parties battle over land occupation. Is the social scientist
qualified to say it is not over land occupation?
The social scientist is there to discover what the conflict is really
about, not to wave a wand and tell everyone what it is by divine
inspiration. The parties involved may say it is about land occupation,
but questioning might reveal that, for example, the actual concern is
about being attacked, and the land is wanted for a buffer zone. So the
conflict is really about safety, and land occupation is only a means of
achieving safety. If this more important goal is recognized, it may be
that some other way of achieving safety can be found that doesn’t involve
land occupation and doesn’t cause a conflict. The conflicting parties
themselves have to find such solutions if they’re to do any
good.
The only way to find out what the most important concern is is to ask.
The scientist or negotiator or mediator is not there to impose opinions
about the problem on the parties to the conflict. The aim is simply to
bring out the structure of goals on both sides of the conflict so the
parties can examine them. People in conflict with other people seldom
have a very organized picture of what the conflict is about.
What if two
parties battle over the nature of the use of the land as in the North
American takeover by European culture. In other words it looks like
you are saying that a social scientist knows more about the nature of the
conflict than the combatants. And I question
that.
Well, so do I! You are misreading me. Following my procedure, if anyone
could have been persuaded to do so, might have saved a lot of misery and
grief. Actually, in many cases the Native Americans were willing to
negotiate, but the Europeans didn’t want to. They didn’t think they had
to, and they didn’t seem to extend Christian principles to dealing with
redskins.
If a group
says that they will fight to the death for survival of a culture no
social scientist can say that they don’t have the authority to do
that.
I must say that your picture of what social scientists do is unfamiliar
to me. It’s certainly nothing like what I would recommend, or expect. I
suppose it happens sometimes, and maybe was a more common way of working
100 years ago.
I doubt
if a social scientist can reveal what the conflict is “really
about”. I do believe however that they might persuade the
contestants to see and adopt alternative values and spare themselves the
cost of war.
I don’t think that’s any of their business. Now it’s you who wants the
scientists to dictate values. In my view of the right approach, the
scientist, or mediator, simply wants to get the parties to explore their
structures of goals and give them a chance to consider all the
possibilities, and reorganize while they’re at it. How they
reorganize, what solutions they come up with, is their concern. Maybe
they’ll decide to go ahead and fight. That’s up to them.
How would you
persuade two waring parties to listen to “we”. Social
scientists can’t force their services on anyone not willing to employ
them. If two parties are determined to go to war they
will.
Oh, yes. They certainly will. But even such determined parties will often
put on at least a show of negotiating before they proceed (they think) to
blow the other side away and win. That gives a mediator a chance to ask
some questions that might jog some people up a level. It’s worth a try.
Of course this only works if the parties have a little interest in
avoiding the conflict.
And if two
parties do employ a social scientist, that social scientist must be
respected by and financed by both parties. So You also must
anticipate the cost of enforcing the decisions.
With my approach no enforcement is needed. Each party reaches a decision
about what to do based on that party’s understanding of the total
situation. Since that decision is based on each party’s understanding of
its own interests, there is no reason not to behave accordingly. The
mediator simply tries to make sure that the total situation is
considered, and has no power to dictate solutions.
How
would that money be generated is a reasonable question at this
juncture… The money supply becomes an issue. Why employ
someone to advise a strategy that will not be financible?
I raised these questions because it is real easy to armchair
solutions, not so easy to implement.
Well, these questions are starting to sound like real easy armchair
nit-picking to me. I mean, you haven’t even considered who is going to
supply the pencils and pencil sharpeners, and cater the lunches, or any
of those essential matters. This sounds like a recipe for
paralysis.
Best,
Bill P.