Pursuing a Shared Future in the Face of Globalization: Four Essential Questions

Byron Bland, L. Ross
{"title":"Pursuing a Shared Future in the Face of Globalization: Four Essential Questions","authors":"Byron Bland, L. Ross","doi":"10.11114/IJLPA.V1I1.3383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":231433,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Public Administration","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11114/IJLPA.V1I1.3383","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

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.
全球化背景下的人类命运共同体:四个基本问题
本文讨论了“四问题”框架(Bland, Powell, & Ross,《解决争端的障碍:对对手之间建立和平和关系的反思》,2012),我们和我们的同事在努力促进参与北爱尔兰和以色列/巴勒斯坦看似棘手的冲突的团体进行建设性对话和艰难妥协的过程中发展起来的。这一框架的关键特点是需要对可承受的共同未来抱有远见,并致力于追求这一未来。这一框架的其他三个特点是需要建立承诺将得到兑现的信任,各方需要了解和承认在接受这一未来时每个人将承受的损失,以及各方需要解决比他们认为正义的要求更少的问题,但也要解决目前最严重的不公正根源。我们认为,这一框架为理解和弥合当今美国和许多其他民主国家明显的政治分歧提供了一个有用的视角,这些国家不仅面临全球化给弱势群体带来的经济威胁和损失,而且还面临与社区生活和个人尊严感削弱有关的威胁和损失。我们还讨论了损失厌恶现象(卡尼曼和特沃斯基,2000年),以及它在让人们容易接受散布仇恨的民粹主义领导人的言论方面所起的作用。我们注意到显然需要为最易受伤害的人提供体面的生活水平和更大的安全,但进一步需要以非羞辱的方式这样做,我们还处理区分可接受的不完美的困难妥协和不可接受的妥协的需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信