Mediating Across Worldviews

When we survey the current theoretical landscape, we find two distinct approaches to the analysis of worldviews. The systemic approach centers on responses to fundamental worldview questions (aka “big questions”); the cognitive‐behavioral approach focuses on the processes that give rise to behaviors that express worldviews. If we think of worldviews as subjective representations of the environment, that is, subjective “worlds,” we can think of the first approach as a means of eliciting, documenting, and comparing “worlds‐made” and the second as a framework for understanding the nonconscious processes of “world‐making.” It is not clear, however, how the two approaches are related. If human answers to the fundamental worldview questions are simply reflective additions to underlying cognitive processes, we would anticipate that worldview conflicts could be resolved relatively easily. If the implicit answers are embedded in nonconscious processes that are presupposed by various ways of life, we would expect that the process of resolving conflicts would be much more complex. An evolutionary approach, which views world‐making as an evolved capacity, not only suggests that the latter is the case, but also offers a way to integrate the two approaches. If, as an evolutionary approach would suggest, all mobile organisms must implicitly answer basic, species‐appropriate versions of the big questions in order to survive, then we can integrate the two approaches by defining worldviews in terms of simplified big questions that allow for both proximate and ultimate answers. This allows us to embed the systemic framework in an agent‐based cognitive‐behavioral process grounded in the everyday life and behavior of humans and other animals. The article is divided into three parts. The first demonstrates how we can use simplified versions of the big questions to integrate the systemic and cognitive‐behavioral approaches, ground the big questions in ways of life, and shift between systemic and agent‐based perspectives. The second offers more refined analytic concepts—modes, scale, and scope—for characterizing this dynamic, multilevel approach to worldviews. The third offers several comparisons to illustrate the benefits of this more‐nuanced approach in the context of conflict resolution.

Section: Analysis In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Worldview Analysis as a Tool for Conflict Resolution

Taves¹

2022

“…Parties also crucially must understand the variants of their own worldview operating within their own community. The negotiation behind the table (intraparty work) is especially important in the context of worldview conflict (Seul 2020).…”

Section: Worldviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Parties and mediators interested in using worldview analysis as an aid to conflict resolution likely will need worldview maps at multiple levels (or scales) of analysis, in part because it will be important to understand differences in perspective among and within key subgroups (e.g., religious Zionist and ultra‐Orthodox constituents) within larger subgroups (e.g., religious Jews) within a society (in this case, Israel) in order to guide intraparty/behind‐the‐table negotiation (within Israel) and understand its implications for interparty/across‐the‐table negotiation (with Palestinians and others). We also will need each of these worldview maps to illuminate how each of the key issues in the conflict are perceived through the worldview in question (Seul 2020).…”

Section: Negotiation Building Blocks and The Worlds We Buildmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…“Changing the players” in a worldview conflict seldom is possible, nor would it be likely to produce a durable agreement even if it were possible. To the contrary, we must build broad coalitions behind‐the‐table and much broader and deeper coalitions across‐the‐table (Lax and Sebenius 2012), including engagement with subgroups some consider to be “extreme” or “hawkish” (Seul 2020). A party whose sacred values are implicated in a conflict will continue to assert itself in other ways if not provided a meaningful opportunity to engage in negotiation and attempt to resolve the conflict in a way that comports with its worldview.…”

Section: Bridging Worldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On Negotiation Building Blocks and Bridging the Worlds We Build

Seul¹

2022

Self Cite

Each of the predominate approaches to negotiation and conflict resolution—interest‐based bargaining, basic human needs approaches, and narrative approaches—is grounded in a particular worldview with embedded assumptions about why and how parties experience conflict, the building blocks available to construct a solution to their conflict, and the proper design goals and methods for assembling those building blocks. When an approach to negotiation and conflict resolution is misaligned with the worldview(s) inhabited by one or more of the conflict parties, this mismatch may partially explain why a conflict resists resolution. Scholars and practitioners in our field should develop greater fluency in and capacity to work within and across disparate worldviews, so we and those we seek to assist are able to negotiate across worldviews more effectively.

Negotiations in Heterogeneous Societies: Ratifying a Peace Agreement in Israel

Zalzberg¹,

Ravitzky²

2022

This article analyzes Israel's ratification of the Israeli–Jordanian peace treaty to illustrate how a highly heterogeneous body politic achieved partial success in meeting the challenge of formulating a uniform foreign policy that coheres with colliding worldviews, including those anchored in religious and/or non‐liberal reasoning. Building on this case study, the authors propose four principal recommendations for designing and implementing a policy that wins broad, stable, and durable support within a deeply heterogeneous society. First, allow for multiple concurrent justifications and reasons to support such policy; second, actively strive for holders of competing worldviews to formulate justifications that fit their own perspectives; third, design policy steps in ways that can be congruent with the disparate, pertinent worldviews; and fourth, enable meaningful ways to express reservations, demur, and discomfort regarding the policy.