Conflict Resolution: A Non-Systematic Exploration of Strategies

      What is good/sauce for the goose is good/sauce for the gander…
      And what is not good/sauce for the goose is not good/sauce for the gander…?

	In this short exposition I would like to propose a technique, using the maxim above, as a possible avenue to be adopted when setting out on the long, practical road of conflict resolution. It is time for us philosophers to get our hands dirty – all philosophy should ultimately deal with the here and now (without being sold out to the highest bidder in these days of ‘heightened materialism’ or the blind ‘hyper-commercial transformation of the life-world’ that has currently beset international, national and local cultures if the counter-currents of current reaction, in this nascent Contemporary era, are not strong enough to rewrite its insidious downward discountings of all non-commercially inspired ventures of the spirit…?).

For the sake of an introductory completeness I will also tentatively suggest some other supplementary strategies. First, however, I would like to attempt a provisional exploration and systematic understanding of what it might mean ‘to be in a relationship’ and how ‘conflict resolution must somehow already be in place through the very fact of the establishment of that relationship (in the hic et nunc)’, and, how further processes of conflict resolution should build upon the same ground.

	Mixing metaphors is probably a recipe for the baking of a good philosophic controversy. Unpacking this spaghetti of images, presuppositions and concepts, or, just taking a simple delight in an indigestible pasta of beliefs, will attract both the gourmand and the glutton, their styles in dispatching this can of worms declaring what type of philosopher and how much of a diplomatic they might be at the same time! In a metaphorical conflict, hopefully, in the process of conflict resolution, only metaphorical blood will be spilt. But if in a conflict literal blood is already being spilt it must be our hope that this opening will be quickly brought to an effective end through the recognition of the immediate need for the staunching of wounds! Hence this type of philosophy might be seen as ‘first aid’, and, as a topic that should engage the very best philosophical minds that in the world we have here with us today!

	Where should we begin I ask myself? Let us first look at what is superficially already-to-hand in our observations of conflict in general in this everyday vision of the life-world that appears to cut across cultural boundaries. Different societies may have different ways of resolving conflict, ultimately, in the breakdown or inadequate success of those techniques, we have ‘warfare’ – acts of physical violence between two or more parties with the loss of property and/or injury or death of those directly and/or indirectly involved. Taking ‘warfare’ to its logical conclusion we have the ‘ultimate solution’, namely, the destruction of one, two or all of those warring parties and the effective destruction of that relationship, but, rarely, if at all, is this ‘ultimate solution’ going to be ‘perfectly’ arrived at with, as a result, wounded individuals and societies bent on seeking further acts of destructive revenge… And so the cycle of violence continues ad nauseum. On the other hand, conflict per se is not to be avoided because it is only through its resolution that you have a relationship in the first place! As a consequence, if a relationship is already in place, and the collective interaction of warring parties establishes just that, it implies that some form of resolutional activity is already taking place, albeit obviously not in a successful fashion as the 'ultimate end of a process of inadequately resolved dissonance' is 'the effective destruction of that relationship'! To be ‘in dispute’ means ‘you must be in a relationship with whom you are in dispute with’! Moreover, that means ‘you must already have in place mechanisms of resolution that allow the fact of the relationship to find its actual existence in the first place! So let us look in general at these resolutional mechanisms that must be in place in order to understand why they are not effectively operating in those relationships that are obviously ‘breaking-down’. This expression ‘breaking-down’ alerting us to this fact that the integrity of a relationship must first be in place for a process of obvious and/or non-obvious conflict to be taking place.

	If we have two parties in a boxing ring, about to box the ‘living daylights’ out of each other in this barbaric game, what mechanisms of resolution might we have in the exercise of this conflict? For a start we have the so-called civilized rules of the game, perhaps following the Queensbury Rules, e.g. So, we have rules for engagement agreed on by both parties. Then, we have ways of determining the outcome, as to who might win, loose or draw this match regardless of whether the decision of the umpire or umpires is controversial or not. Moreover, thankfully, unlike the sport of cockfights, the game can be suspended or ended in the unlikely event of serious injury. Furthermore, we have a whole raft of other conventions like costumes, size and nature of the boxing-ring, conduct at pre-match publicity, post-match ‘post-mortems’, etc. In essence, the two parties must be in a relationship in order to box. And the same applies, in varying degrees, to the practice of ‘warfare’ despite a desire to conquer and/or eliminate the other party or parties.

	Even in the case of someone hypothetically ‘wanting to kill someone so badly that they might murder them’? A potential 'fact of our existence' attested to by newspapers…

	If party A wants so badly to murder party B it must mean that they have an intensity of feeling, of one for the other at least, that, in being thwarted or whatever, they would ‘want’ as a result to dispatch them with ‘an intensity’ to overcome both the prohibitions re the same and the ‘messy’ nature of this type of business along with a set of outcomes also potentially unfavourable for the person or persons who are to carry out this dastard deed. Now, having ‘feelings for someone’ is indirect evidence of a relationship. However, what if a person who had never met you took an extreme objection to the way you write philosophy, e.g., and took this 'exception' to that extent that they thought that they should, for some reason or other, silence your pen so to speak. This is not a laughing matter, obviously for that philosopher concerned, and surely I don’t have to remind you that this type of occurrence was a regular practice at various times in European history, as witnessed in the burning of people at the stake among other ways of disposing of them.

So, if this murderous party had never ‘met’ that philosopher how could one say that the philosopher was in a relationship with that murderous judge of philosophy, and vice versa,  before the actual occasion of that event of murder? In answer to that I would say there was already an indirect relationship in some form of other for both parties. In this ‘one’ life-world, this world-of-life-there-for-us, all relationships have at least some form of a potential existence (and that there can be no absolutely pure potentiality of existence as argued elsewhere in my series of theological essays), even if one or both parties had never met the other except 'indirectly' though the medium of texts because in ‘ultimate reality’, ‘reality-itself’ from a hypothetical point of view, our interaction with others is through the form of texts, textual forms of retention and protention, etc. Even the murder weapon is in essence another text, in this instance an intentionally fabricated weapon or weapons and/or a natural object or objects to be utilized by one party with murderous intent. Of course our writing may offend, usually, it’s the mis-perceived ‘perception’ or ‘conception’ of our being-in-the-world that may offend others for whatever reason or reasons they may or may not come to understand. Usually, thank goodness, we deal with it in a more civilized fashion – we address the issues, we ignore them, we try to reform them, or, just beat them up literally or metaphorically without seeking this ‘ultimate solution’ which in the normal chain of events in this world-of-life-where-we-must-live-with-others would more than likely become an ‘ultimate problem’ for all effected parties (even after the death of the original parties concerned). By the way, if I have offended anyone here I would like to take this opportunity to profoundly apologise even if, in the unlikely event, that I may have committed a wrong; given grounds for a perceived offence; have tortured syntax, perpetrated semantic mayhem, committed stylistic suicide and/or murdered good old commonsense in the process, etc. Please, therefore, except my unreserved apology!

	We meet each other through texts! We only encounter each other through the medium of the textual. We encounter our own sense(s) of self the same way. But this sense of the textual includes the textual, the meta-textual and the non-textual (as explicated elsewhere)… wherein we experience objectivity, intersubjectivity, and subjectivity/trans-subjectivity… the sense of the phenomenal, the meaning of the hermeneutical and the meaningfulness of the existential… where we experience a sense of the past (through retention), a sense of the future (through protention) and a sense of the present (through a non-textual suspension of both retention and protention)… and their collective interaction in the living-presence of being-with-others-in-this-one-world-of-life….

	This granted, hypothetically, and only for the sake of completing my overall argument in this short essay, what practical implications does this type of analysis have for one wishing to practise conflict resolution (in more consciously self-aware, deliberate and skilful intentional terms of reference)?

	For a start, although we may believe “parties in a conflict may ‘absolutely’ hate each other” we must come to understand that that cannot absolutely be the case! To be in actual conflict means we must be in a relationship. And to be in a relationship means that there must already be in place ‘an ongoing process of resolution’ albeit an inadequate process. A ‘relationship’ is its own unique dimension of love because the nature of resolution is just that, namely love… an expression of love in keeping with the very nature of that type of resolution! Of course in a situation of visible conflict that may be none too obvious… but is something we should look more deeply for… because it is on this ground and this type of ground alone that all processes of resolution in that relationship will be entered into in the hope of realizing this more visible act of reconciliation, a less conflictually obvious mode of engagement and therein arriving at a more engaged attitude of ‘love’ or ‘respect’ for the other parties in that relationship…

	Without wasting too much time in our getting to the essence of this conciliatory ground what fundamental principles and conditions should be put in play for the ongoing resolution of conflict, conflict of a negative disruptive and/or destructive nature…?

	Put as bluntly as possible the most fundamental principle, I believe, is the fact that we should address ‘the other’ as if a ‘person’ and hope that ‘they’ in turn will address us in the same fashion. This principle of personification is demanded by the textual fact that we enter into all forms of intentional interaction as an intentional agent. That only in a recognition of agency qua agency will allow us 'to address the other party or parties' properly and therein allow them to engage us likewise! Moreover, all forms of interaction are in essence epistemologically organized to some degree (as argued for in a process theology), and, as all relationships are greater than the sum of their components, be they in the oriented forms of agency and/or non-agency, it implies that through this (integrated textual) medium, or dimension, of that 'which must be greater than the mere parties of that relationship', that the relationship to this extent (through this 'relational excess') has the power to rectify the constitution of its own 'relational sense of self' or 'agency'. Hence this principle of personification automatically leads to a principle of rectification of that relationship by and through ‘its properly being addressed’ and therein it being allowed, i.e., through the voluntary granting of ‘permission’ or by involuntary default, to address us properly, i.e., more appropriately in and through this (reflexive) sense of relational-agency or auto-self-agency! Therein the ‘spirit of the relationship’ appropriates us and through us enlarges this dimension of the relational that constitutes for-us the being-becoming of the life-world and therein details its existential richness and unity as ‘a’ world-there-for-us, indeed, as ‘the’ life-world! Only in this realm of being-unto-others is our life and the life of others enriched through this enrichment of ‘our’ relationships - this ‘respect’ we have for the relationships-we-enter-into-with-others; a sense of ‘otherness’ realized therein that can no longer feel estranged, dis-valued, devalued, dehumanized, institutionalized, alienated, distrusted, distrustful, destructively engaged, injurious, murderous, etc!

	Addressing both each other and all relationships as 'personal' means ‘putting all forms of agency onto the same existential level of being’! And that means we must see ‘the other’ as ‘a person’ (or as if a ‘person’ with a singular and/or a plural sense) on the same footing as us – as being in conflict, as being in a relationship, as being involved in processes of resolution already taking place, however adequately or inadequately, giving us therein the grounds for the resolution and enlargement of the horizons of that relationship, and, hopefully our harmonious living together in this world if that is to be achieved… could be achieved!

	Now equally humbled before this equal sense of the other, without the obstructions of ego(s), allows that relationship to ‘re-assess’ itself and, therein, work through us. So, even if we were about to be murdered we should still be able to respond authentically to the urgency of this situation in such a manner that, hopefully, will circumvent the same, etc. Moreover, even if we could, theoretically, respond authentically in that life-and-death situation, then so much easier it must be to respond in a less urgent situation however serious its potential ramification for the future. How then are we to act in accordance with this principle of personification and therein, hopefully, set up the existential grounds for  this ‘automatic’ process of auto-relational rectification?

	Through the appropriate adaptation and adoption of the following principle noted as our subtitle quote (along with its negative amplification) namely:

What is good/sauce for the goose is good/sauce for the gander…
And what is not good/sauce for the goose is not good/sauce for the gander…?

	With the above principle in mind I would like to quickly look at the situation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to show how it is both perpetuating itself, and, how it will be resolved in the goodness of time; hopefully soon than later.

	Both parties cannot wish for the absolute destruction of the other – the fact is that both will continue to exist and as ‘neighbours’ will need to learn how that ‘fact’ of their needing-to-live-together is to be mutually achieved.

	A recognition of each other’s existence and the need for mutual co-existence is a fait accompli, a fact recognized by most of the parties concerned if not grudgingly accepted as a de facto fact by those other parties!

	But the true meaning of this recognition is that they must come to see each other as ‘equal’ as demanded by this principle of personification. Rectification more easily flows from this type of recognition, indeed, to the extent that this recognition is a fact. If the parties are to co-exist what is necessary is a true, full recognition that the other party is equal in the midst of this conflict – as long as that recognition is not ‘actualized’ the longer this dispute must continue and continue to be unsuccessful in attempted processes of apparent reconciliation! The prolonging of this state of inequality, by certain parties on both sides of this conflict, is a recipe for its destructive continuance and which can only ‘benefit’ those extreme forces that have an agenda that thinks “‘they’ will ‘benefit’ from such a ‘delay’,” when, correctly, all parties can only truly gain through the ongoing resolution and expansion of all relationships! This is the case because ‘our’ relationships both constitute and detail the nature of this world–of-life as it is to be experienced by-us for-us, and, as we live in ‘one’ world-of-life it behooves us to rectify all our relationships, or rather, ‘allow’ our relationships to existentially and, thereby, authentically rectify themselves!

	The actualization of this recognition of equality is attested to through the actual application of this formula that “what is good for the goose is good for the gander, etc.” Briefly, from my limited non-partisan appreciation of this sad situation, these parties, in my limited understanding, would, among other issues, need to address the following controversial considerations:

1.	Recognition of both parties.
2.	The acceptance of Jerusalem as a capital city for both parties.
3.	Compensation, even if token, for all displaced persons.
4.	The eventual recognition of a greater Israel-Palestine for all of its inhabitants.
5.	The right for all parties to reasonably live where they wish to live.
6.	The right to security by reasonable means secured through active processes of resolution.

Let me briefly address these six points and therein discuss them more deeply in the light of this essay.

1.	The first point needs no discussion as noted above – it’s a fait accompli that only needs effective actualization through the next five points, etc.

2.	There is no reason why Jerusalem could not be the capital of these two countries. A form of compromise (without being compromised), implied in the principle of rectification, might well be a recognition of the title of ‘East Jerusalem’ as the capital for Palestine in distinction to ‘Jerusalem’ or ‘West Jerusalem’ for the capital of Israel. Why not?! What prejudice is there that would reasonably stop this from becoming a fact. Surely, if it is good enough for one side to have a capital in a part of Jerusalem then it is good enough for the other party to argue for the same in principle. Then, the ‘recognition of equality’ could, in theory and in practice, accept nothing else in this respect! Placing the Palestinian capital at Ramallah, just outside Jerusalem contra the wishes of the Palestinians, is only a recognition of a blatant non-recognition of one of the parties by the other. And that is not proper grounds for the resolution of this conflict, indeed, is evidence for its actively engaged non-resolution in this regard?

3.	The wrongs of the past should be addressed! Sincere compensation, even if somewhat in the form of a relative token with respect to true market prices, should be given to the historically aggrieved parties. “A wrong done is always a wrong done, a wrong righted is just that – the righting of a wrong,” and, “a valid recognition of the other always necessitates some form of historical rectification through some process of compensation”. Through that process of compensation the other is being recognized through the sense of ‘sacrifice’ entailed – the only way forward for a long-lasting, ongoing peaceful resolution of this conflict and all other dreadful, destructive dehumanizing conflicts. But, as a ‘process’, this can only take place through a process, and is not something that can be briefly engaged and then forgotten about. It is something that will take time… should be kept on track… despite certain parties wishing to derail this type of process (which essentially will disenfranchise them if those forces cannot also be appropriately accommodated in this ‘political’ process of resolution).

	Compensation should be recognized as previously argued. Moreover, the principle is the same – if Palestinians are to be compensated so too should all Israelis compromised by this process and/or have compensation claims of their own through the destruction of life and property.

4.	Jewish people should have right to visit other parts of their historical Israel outside the modern state of Israel, and, Palestinians, in turn, should have the equal right to visit and live and work in the Jewish controlled areas of what was formerly called ‘Palestine’. Hence the overall status of this region also needs to be accommodated in practice, if not in political fact, as a potential area of co-habitation and co-prosperity since neighbours will, in time, treat each others as true neighbours in the goodness of time in line with the sheer force of the fact that ‘they must live together’ and living together they might as well do just that in as mutual a fashion as possible! Despite Israel’s current dominance in military power an equality in moral power must eventually override this disparity without it being inflicted in its connotative sense ‘through disparity’. “Even the mighty elephant can be alarmed by a mouse” which is currently the situation is it not? – a fact that is not meant to be taken in just a metaphorical sense but as a current lethal fact of life with suicide bombers, remote detonations, parcel bombs and other acts of terrorism! That a mighty state should be troubled by this litany of revenge, not un-provked I might add, is witnessed in the disproportionate destruction and killing initiated in over-reaction to it. Good reasons, therefore, despite a disparity in military power, for both the Palestinians and the Israelis to enter into a successful long-term process of resolution, which, to some extent, has taken place or had taken place (even if conducted as if between ‘unequals’?).

5.	Living as ‘equals’ means that if a Jewish person wants to live on the West Bank then perhaps they could as long as they recognize the need of those Palestinians who want to return to their old homes in Israel proper, or other areas in close vicinity, to be near the graves of their ancestors, etc. Building a wall to separate the West Bank is political folly in all senses of the word. Already, a large number of Jewish people have settled on the West bank, and, large numbers of Arabs live on the Jewish side of this so-called ‘fence’ currently being constructed. Mechanisms, not already in place, will need to be put in place to recognize this fact of life for both parties. Moreover, through a return to ongoing prosperity for the Palestinians less will want to even think of processes of revenge. Most people want a good, happy, healthy lifestyle without the intrusion and disruption of war, terrorism, etc. Most people on both sides want this 'freedom to be' despite the fact that both ‘nations’ are under siege. These people need to have their voices heard! And the radicals on both sides need to be thoroughly and effectively sidelined to the same extent that they will be eventually forgotten in the tides and sands of history… a fact hopefully realized sooner than later. The only controversy, like all controversies where all parties essentially agree on what fundamental principle are at stake, is in what aspects of this controversy they believe should be marked up or discounted down.

6.	The right to security secured by reasonable means through active processes of resolution will be the natural result of the above processes starting with ‘personification’, ‘rectification’, a ‘practical recognition of the equality of each other', etc. Hence the application of this saying:

What is good/sauce for the goose is good/sauce for the gander…
And what is not good/sauce for the goose is not good/sauce for the gander…?

To finish let me briefly allude to a number of other strategies that might assist this type of process in conflict resolution. Hopefully, you will be able to add some ideas of your own to this list?

In some ways the Palestinian-Israelis conflict is a bit like a messy divorce. I note the following technique that has been adopted for the division of the estate between two divorcing parties. The property under dispute is inventoried. Then both parties are to separately evaluate and score their attachment to items of property in this inventory by ascribing a value out of, say, a hundred using an economy of 100 tokens per person. Then when that is done the two parties can compare their lists and note sequentially, from the highest ascribed value first, what each party has a stronger preference for. As a suggestion, other competing parties could note what properties/principles, etc., are at stake and evaluate them accordingly in the light of their hierarchical preferencing then taking each other's hierarchical listing of preferences into some form of (a parallel) account? In my experience, once a process of give and take is more amicably entered into this process of rectification then seems to have ‘a life of its own’.

What other techniques might we wish to invoke? Here are some tentative suggestions A complete commercial evaluation of all ‘assets’ to be divided and their being (progressively) paid for in equitable accordance with the means of the parties concerned? Processes of short separation followed by processes of re-engagement, therein re-learning to re-live together; in the process positively rewarding genuine acts of resolution? Acceptance of a need for mediation, through a ‘higher power’, say the United Nations, and therein ‘encouraging’ warring parties to resolve their differences under the influence of this ‘peace’. The active re-institution of trade in order to re-establish an adequate and successful middle class, etc., as an essential factor for the introduction, development and stabilisation of appropriate forms of eventual (and inevitable) democratisation, etc!

To sum up what should I re-iterate?! Let me list some of the points noted in this short essay:

1.	To be in conflict you need to be in a ‘relationship’!
2.	To be in a relationship means you are already engaged in processes of resolution!
3.	The nature of a relationship is expressed through the nature of its resolution.
4.	The nature of a relationship is to be found in its ‘intrinsic love’ even if that ‘fact’ is not obvious!
5.	Future processes of resolution can only operate on these grounds of resolution already in play because it is only on those grounds of resolution that the relationship comes into existence and that existence is enriched through successful processes of resolution !
6.	Resolution demands a 'principle of personification' (wherein the parties of a relationship should be treated as ‘persons’ (or as if ‘persons’))!
7.	From the principle of personification a 'principle of rectification' naturally flows wherein the ‘spirit of that relationship’ sets out to rectify inadequate forms of resolution through its ‘own’ intentional being-becoming.
8.	The 'practical application of equality’ demands the recognition and instantiation of the following maxim in some format or other…

What is good/sauce for the goose is good/sauce for the gander…and…
What is not good/sauce for the goose is not good/sauce for the gander…?

	…as a point for the re-commencement for those acts of resolution that realize ‘our’ living-together in this ‘one’ world-of-life…!
							          Noël Tointon, Sydney, 3.9.02.

Some Reflections Post the Presentation and Discussion of this Working Paper

1.	A postmodern philosopher might say “all positions, all sides of an argument, should be treated equally, as equal in value”. This does not take into account meta-levels of philosophical analysis, etc., or the degree of logical or moral cogency being exercised on any one level or side of an argument even disputed on the same meta-level of analysis, etc. On the other hand, to adopt a (modernist-like) position because it is stated in accordance with “scripture”, or some other form of ‘authority’, what ever the source of that ‘claim’, is neither ‘to personify’ the parties in a dispute nor ‘to personify’ the nature of that relationship those parties find themselves engaged within. Only through personification can the party practising personification hope to adopt an authentic response to the dissonance experienced within that relationship… be authentically adopted by the existential ‘spirit of that relationship’ and find oneself being adapted to direct oneself accordingly, being ‘enpowered’ to existentially act on the behalf of that relationship (through this form of ethical reservation), etc. Hence, both types of position need to be disputed and avoided!

2.	As noted in this paper, a philosophy of the person needs to be more deeply thought through in conjunction with a philosophy of what it means ‘to be authentic’. In some measure this paper would appear to take the position that to be (relatively more) authentic is something that can be ‘recognized’ (like spontaneously taking ‘a drowning child from the well’ as argued by Mencius, e.g.). That in essence a ‘person’ has an inherent sense of the moral (or the potential sensibility to learn and/or know what is right in a given situation). That ‘being a person’, in essence, is realized through having a ‘sense of conscience’.

3.	Entering into a relationship in dispute, either virtually or actually, and ‘therein’ vehemently remonstrating with the one or other of the parties is not necessarily a defect in one’s position. Indeed, in being a ‘person’, in personifying the parties of a relationship and personifying the relationship itself we might find that we are ‘forced’ ‘to be human’ by this process of remonstration, acting on the behalf of that relationship! Transcendental detachment, a necessity for a ‘dispassionate’ reflection, may give rise when ‘called for’ a passionate response. Therefore, being passionate, being vehement, in the face of injustice (perpetrated through a lack of personification and consequential existential rectification) in a relationship may well be called for (as long as the relationship ‘calls’ for the same) without suggesting that this method of resolution is the only existential path of resolution that could be adopted.

4.	The argument of the absolute privacy of a relationship should not be adopted as the moral consequences of any relationship can effect others, etc., as per footnotes no. 8 and 11. Hence representation and remonstration can be made of these grounds, e.g., etc.

5.	One should also realize that the personification argument that calls for the treatment of all parties (and the relationship itself) to be treated as ‘on and equal footing’ does not mean that all parties are equal in fact or should be treated that way at some point in the future nor does it imply an eventual loss of identity in doing so. Indeed, quite the opposite is realized in practice. It does mean however, that all power should be exercised humanely (through forms of ethical reservation).

6.	Argued philosophically it should be demonstrable in those terms of reference to show that through a resolution of conflict the parties of a dispute stand to gain more, than what ever they might stand to lose, through the adoption of an existential process of conflict resolution. In the Israelis-Palestinian Conflict, e.g., enormous amount of resources, etc., would be freed up once an existential resolution of that conflict is realized. Who could impartially dispute this ‘profit’ and sense of ‘relief’ (when this paper has practically outlined a win – win type of resolution through the adoption  of this maxim that sub-titles this paper?!).

										Noël, 8.9.02.