Dialogue: Agreed, but systemic approach first

Abstract

I find myself both in sympathy with the Burgess's goals and deeply concerned about critical aspects missing from their message. I too, am dismayed to see the United States society becoming more and more divided, including movement to literally secede by Texas. I applaud the goal of a collaborative democracy, and agree that our field should be a critical part of it. However, I am also deeply concerned about arguments for individual acts and communication channels, when there seems to be a structural analysis missing; false equivalencies; and a lack of distinction being made between what I will call Authoritarians and Republicans.I am disturbed, for instance, by how their article characterizes the goals of the "right" and the "left"-first, as if they are monolithic and do not have meaningful internal divisions, and second by characterizing the divisions as: "On the right side of the divide, 'making liberals cry' has popular appeal. The objective of the progressive left seems more ambitious-to cancel and drive from the public square anyone who has ever expressed the slightest doubt about the merits of any aspect of the progressive agenda" (p. 2). It is critical to go deeper an ask what drives these apparent moves? I think it is critically important to analyze the systemic roots of the polarization the authors, wisely, want to dismantle. To go forward I want to stop a moment and make a distinction I am coming to find increasingly important to me. There are Republicans deeply committed to Democracy, and dialogue. So, for instance, it is notable that almost all of those testifying in the January 6 hearings were Republicans, showing by their actions that they believe in Democracy and that they want to be part of a conversation where the votes of the people matter.However, I believe some of the current Republican leadership do not believe in Democracy, and are trying to create an authoritarian government. These may be the "Bad Faith Actors" the authors refer to, but I think it is critically important to move beyond seeing a problem of "Bad" individual actors, and look at systems, being coordinated and instituted with intention, across many levels of the society. I believe the authoritarianism the authors fear is here, now. Much of the current polarization is by no means a coincidence, but a deliberate, and classic move, by Authoritarians. The "Manichaean, us-vs-them framing" (p. 3) is part of a larger set of goals.Response to "Applying conflict resolution insights to the hyper-polarized, society-wide conflicts threatening liberal democracies" by Burgess, Burgess and Kaufman.

The paradox of tolerance? ‘In situ’ alerts from Israel on hyper‐polarization and threatened democracy

“…To counteract the insidious strategy and deeds of the current Israeli government, the opposition had to publicly expose the former's intentions and firmly act against it. In line with Goldberg (2022) commentary following Mayer & Font-Guzm an's (2022) claims regarding mediator neutrality, dialogue with the adversary aiming to a compromise in such extreme circumstances where the tolerance limits have been crossed was no longer a viable strategy. In a similar vein, Eva Illouz, Israeli sociologist, in her talk at Van Leer Institute (January 3, 2023) and a column published in the HAARETZ daily (February 3, 2023) maintained that thwarting the racist and anti-democratic trends following the recent elections requires two main measures: 1.…”

“…Some possibilities are: parallel multi-level interventions, transforming contentious frames into collaborative orientation, stressing the "power with" participative approach while searching for diverse partners, and adopting partial consensus and compromise decision rules instead of searching for total consensus solutions. Goldberg (2022) emphasized in her commentary the limitations of dialogues, especially those held privately and confidentially, as they fall short of changing the structurally embedded violence and thus not counteracting authoritarian indoctrination. Rather, at such times communications may reinforce the inequalities.…”

“…Rather, at such times communications may reinforce the inequalities. Drawing on Mayer & Font-Guzm an (2022), Goldberg (2022) suggests to clearly and publicly voice the causes and processes of escalating polarization and to make conscious and deliberate decisions about how to intervene against the antidemocratic forces-authoritarian systems-and how to approach potential allies, including those holding different attitudes, albeit being against authoritarian attempts to overthrow democratic regime.…”

“…In September 2022, we launched in Conflict Resolution Quarterly our first feature article by Burgess et al, (2022) entitled “Applying conflict resolution insights to the hyper‐polarized, society‐wide conflicts threatening liberal democracies” along with three commentaries by Menkel‐Meadow (2022), Jordaan (2022), and Ozawa (2022). In the following issue we published another commentary by Goldberg (2022).…”

“…Goldberg (2022) emphasized in her commentary the limitations of dialogues, especially those held privately and confidentially, as they fall short of changing the structurally embedded violence and thus not counteracting authoritarian indoctrination. Rather, at such times communications may reinforce the inequalities.…”