Category Archives: Communication and Conflict Resolution

Peace

Posted in Communication and Conflict Resolution

Comments Off on

peaceandconflictpolitics.com

Trump and Putin Play with Their New Toys
To be sure, Vladimir Putin oversees a sprawling kleptocracy
rooted in populist appeals designed to enrich a strongman leader.
Putin sometimes gets described as the richest man in the world
and, of course, Trump is so self-aggrandizing it’s hard to tell the
difference between his governing principles and his personal
economic transactions. He is positioning himself for profits from
crypto currency, plus making international trade deals that
benefit his own family, and a blurred line between government
and private enterprises that can benefit his family.
Trump is, of course, a man-child who desperately needs to flex
his muscles and show the other kids that he is the tough guy on
the block. This lends itself to some interesting oratory and
cognitive mistakes on Trump’s part. Let’s look at some of these
similarities and differences between the two men along with
some conjecture about how they became the authoritarian
leaders they are.

Trump doesn’t read anything and he doesn’t learn anything.
It’s well known among his staff members that he doesn’t read
briefings or do much to improve himself. Putin is always ahead
of him.
Trump is always trying to find a big ugly common enemy,
shall we say China. But this is not working very well for him.
Most presidents try to rally other countries to help – build
coalitions among common countries. But Trump, and his tough
guy persona, would rather go it alone. This is a difficult path to
follow.
Trump dislikes and does not trust the administrative state, all
those government employees doing the work of the nation. He
sees it from the perspective of an outsider. Putin is a product of
an administrative culture and knows it from the inside. He can
control it.
Putin’s control over the administrative structure makes him an
authoritarian of the first order. He doesn’t need to go through a
variety of administrative steps to get something done. But
Trump is a novice at such things and has more hurdles to clear.
So, he compensates for it by bypassing groups and institutions.
That’s why he uses tools such as executive orders that offer
quicker fixes for difficult problems.
The U. S. has a social media that amplifies messages. And
while this carries numerous advantages it also makes it possible
for fringe ideas to gain traction and be more influential than they
normally would. Yet, even though the United States has taken
the lead in the production and distribution of these media it is
Putin who is using these media to his advantage. Interfering with
the American election is one rather obvious example.
Trump has made a number of mistakes. He has fallen behind on
developing new social media uses that can unify Americans and
serve our political interests. His efforts to create enemies such as
China have backfired Chinese culture and business interests are
buried deep in the nature of the country. It’s unlikely that Trump
will make much progress in disturbing the structure of the
Chinese economy and culture

Posted in Communication and Conflict Resolution

Comments Off on peaceandconflictpolitics.com

Tags: donald-trump, politics, Trump

Feb 5

Posted by Donald Ellis

Posted in Communication and Conflict Resolution

Comments Off on

The Empty Signifier and the Construction of Group Distinctiveness

Feb 5

Posted by Donald Ellis

Concepts acquire distinctiveness by using their category dimensions as a measure of meaning. The analysis in this article used religious discourse as an example of the development toward distinctiveness, which is the concept related to group identity. Distinctiveness creates a sense of differentiation between an ingroup and its rival. It sharpens intergroup differences because it describes the other group as delegitimate; consequently delegitimization is exaggerated because one’s own group is praised while the outgroup is vilified. Moreover, each group considers itself a victim of the conflict.

Because the conflict is intractable, the other side is blamed for a disregard of human life and the brutalithttps://peaceandconflictpolitics.com/about-2/y of the other side. Societal beliefs about the delegitimization of the other side characterize them as beyond common humanity, all the while maintaining their own purity and description of themselves in glorifying terms. There develops a sharp contrast between the ingroup’s positive image of itself and the presentation of the outgroup as subhuman. This creates a rigid separation between the two groups and allows for the exaggeration of each side’s point of view, consequently making the conflict even more intractable than it already is.

This research particularizes religious-based conflict by applying dimensional analysis to demonstrate how constructs acquire distinctiveness. The goal is to explain how the concept of “religion” utilizes the signifier to assign content to the idea of religion. More specifically, the theoretical approach utilizes the concept of the “empty signifier.” Five dimensions are unearthed from the analysis in which it is informed by symbolic interactionism and grounded theory.https://peaceandconflictpolitics.com/about-2/https://peaceandconflictpolitics.com/about-2/

The language used to characterize the ingroup includes positive terms such as pride, decency,and responsibility while terms such as evil, violent, aggressive, and vicious are applied to the outgroup. These intractable conflicts begin by characterizing the other side as violent and responsible for the conflict while the in group is described in positive language.

This blog post serves as an introduction to this type of research. In brief, the concept or piece of terminology begins as an empty signifier; that is, a signifier begins with no linguistic content but gradually gets infused with semantic content.

For example, the word “freedom” is a signifier. It evokes a strong sense of personal liberty and autonomy, it lacks a fixed definition. The concept of freedom is often used to justify political, social, and economic positions, but its meaning can be elusive and contested. The divides and distinctions among signifiers accounts for their unique definitions. So, for example, empty signifiers are an important part of the linguistic environment. The meaning is signified and managed through communication systems. The flexibility and struggle for meaning emerges from the possibility for emergent structure formed out of the discourse that constitutes different realms of linguistic reality. So, for example, symbols in literature are typically taken from the natural world (rain indicates sadness, sunlight implies happiness, and storms demonstrate interior turmoil). Over time, empty signifiers “fill up” with meaning.

Posted in Communication and Conflict Resolution

Comments Off on The Empty Signifier and the Construction of Group Distinctiveness

Tags: Language, philosophy

Huckabee Is an extremist for Israel

Dec 2

Posted by Donald Ellis

It must be easy to sell Donald Trump swampland in Florida (now that I think of it, somebody did) and then pay the seller back in gold. This is essentially what happened between Trump and the evangelicals. Evangelical Christians have been criticized for taking a moral political stance on issues such as abortion, immigration, the relationship between church and state, and others. But they have refused to condemn Donald Trump, whose egregious behavior in the world of business, politics, sexual behavior, and others have followed him for decades. So, when Trump appointed Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel it was clear that he was simply rewarding the evangelicals for their support even in the face of their hypocrisy.

It is true enough that Huckabee and evangelicals should be ashamed of themselves for their blatant politicalization of religion by refusing to condemn Trump and his crude behavior. Huckabee is familiar with Israel in the same way that an American tourist is – by traveling there often and having an interest in Jews and their religion. But Huckabee is no expert in Israel and holds numerous positions that will be simply damaging and indefensible. For example, Huckabee has espoused the old canard that “there is really no such thing as a Palestinian.” This is an extremist statement. Try to erase the Palestinian culture and political institutions. The Palestinians have certainly struggled in their efforts to establish a state and find some political relationship with Israel that is workable. And the definition of what makes someone part of a political culture is difficult but the Palestinians meet most of the criteria typically assigned. That is, they occupy a certain piece of geographical territory, they have identifiable cultural patterns, and they are group of people who self-identify as “Palestinians.” They have a common language and cultural institutions, Huckabee’s preference for Israel is clear. He sees no compromise as necessary in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. He has been appointed ambassador to Israel and any old extreme position on both religion and politics. Huckabee has been to Israel on religious pilgrimages and opposes the two-state solution, which is generally considered a rational model. Huckabee holds three positions that are troublesome and extreme.

One, Huckaby does not believe in the separation of church and state. The only way to guarantee one’s religious freedom is to make sure it is not under the thumb of the authoritative state. Huckabee, consistent with evangelicalism, believes that the state should nurture religion which is a position contrary to religious freedom.

Two, Huckabee believes in the settlements and their supposed God-given right to land given to them by that God. This is the land settlers called Judea and Samaria and believed to be the holy land given to them by God. Palestinians make the same claim. Just after his appointment Huckabee arrived in Israel and had film of him huddled with settlers and victoriously claiming that the land was Judea and Samaria of the Bible and belong to no one else. The settlements are a major problem and regardless of how this conflict is solved something has to be done for the Palestinians. There are two groups of people making legal and cultural claims on the land and some mechanism to solve this problem is not to claim that the land belongs only to one group. This is what makes this conflict so intractable and Huckabee will not contribute to smoothing out the intractability.

Three, Huckabee, as he wrestles with his own evangelical text, is an evangelical of the sort who supports Israel because it is supposed to be an ingathering of Jews at the end of days. And after the ascension of Christ everyone must convert to Christianity in order to ascend and find their way to heaven. But unless the Jews convert they cannot make it to heaven. So, evangelicals actually are supportive of Jews only now in the present moment because the Jews cannot be granted the ascension to heaven unless they convert to Christianity. The informed Israeli might think evangelicals are supportive of Israel and the Jews but the true evangelical is just trying to hurry along the ascent to heaven by supporting the Jewish ingathering and return Israel.

Huckabee and his Orthodox religious tenets are not good for Israel whether it be land claimed by two peoples or scriptural demands.

Posted in Communication and Conflict Resolution

2 Comments

Tags: donald-trump, gaza, Israel, palestine, politics

The Zionism-Racism Equation

Jun 9

Posted by Donald Ellis

Peace and Conflict Politics

Zionism Racism

Donald Ellis

June 8
It is certainly easy to banty about the word racism. The sting of its acid tongue is hard to avoid especially if you are a white male or a. member of any dominant group. And interestingly, the word has evolved from a liberal cry for freedom and a national homeland to a left-wing cudgel. Originally the Jews were only supposed to assimilate. That was the goal. The notion of Zionism is really little more than a collection of people seeking to establish a culture that represents the language, philosophy, arts, and politics of the particular group. But it turns out that Zionism is an ambiguous and difficult term that at one moment represents freedom and at another is considered a racist ideology.

And imagine for a moment the powerful pull of Zionism. Would you expect someone who had suffered the pain of anti-Semitism, both literally and figuratively, and found refuge in the state of Israel, to disavow Zionism? And, on the contrary, if you are a Palestinian driven from your home in 1948 would you be surprised if they found it to be a regrettable national liberation movement designed to absorb even more land.The first principle leads back to the history of the present state of Israel. Israel is a foundational movement that points back to historical issues concerning the relationship between the political state of Israel and the religious state. This is a complex conversation between Jews and the Torah; In other words, is the Torah consistent with Jewish prayers and practices? The return to Zion is a recurrent theme and, in fact, considered a divine command.

The covenantal relationship with God – including Noah, circumcision, and Sinai– make Jews distinctive and thereby under the umbrella of a moral God.Moreover, many Jewish leaders are secular and argue that Zionism should not be based on theological perspective. It is cultural affinity such as nationalistic politics, religious doctrine, and historical context that determine nationalistic rights. The point of these covenants is that regardless of historical circumstances the relationship between God and the Jews is stable. There is little doubt that the characterization of the Jews as “a light unto the nations” and “the chosen people” results in the perception of a racist attitude for Jews are an elected group who carry the burden of truly understanding the word of god and god’s commandments.

This notion of “the chosen people” has always lent itself to the charge of elitism and the accompanying claims of racism as the Jews put themselves in the position of strictly knowing god’s mind.But the real question concerns the relationship between Zionism and Judaism. If Zionism emphasizes the spiritual relationship between God and the Jewish people, and insists on adherence to the demands of Jewish practices, then Zionism and Judaism are symmetrical. That is, Zionism must retain its consistencies with the Torah, ritualistic practices, and general identity. And although this would not constitute purposeful racism, nor does it necessarily lead to conclusions about the superiority of one group over the other, it does consider the Jews “to be a light unto the nations” and the Zionist thought that accompanies it to be descriptive of Jewish particularity.

It would mean that the Zionist claim to the land of Israel was religiously required. But Zionism is a national political movement that has successfully maintained its identity, even in the Diaspora, and thereby forces the conclusion that Jewish identity can be maintained in a variety of physical locations and therefore is not so reliant on a single place – e.g. the Temple Mount.Additionally, there is a long tradition of Jews living in exile and working to assimilate themselves into the host culture. If this is possible and religiously acceptable than no territorial base is necessary “to be Jewish.” If one’s Judaism is not dependent on a particular host culture and the Jewish community can fulfill all of its religious obligations, then it is possible to be Jewish anywhere. The Jews have always turned to Torah and other texts to guide their lives. This commitment to shared religious values and practices is more defining of “Jewishness” then are claims to territory.In conclusion, it is important to note that the relationship between the land of Israel and Jews is powerful. Centuries of religious practice and ritualistic observances have drawn the two together such that the Zionism – racism binary make it impossible to escape attributions of racism whether one is a Zionist or not.

Comment Like

You can also reply to this email to leave a comment.

Posted in Communication and Conflict Resolution

Comments Off on The Zionism-Racism Equation

There Will Be No Two-State Solution

Apr 12

Posted by Donald Ellis

The biggest problem with the two-state solution is that it sounds so nice. It seems to make so much intuitive sense. I mean what could be fairer and politically logical then to take two competing cultures, who are fighting over land and national rights, and give them both their own state committed to the proposition that the state will be committed to justice and the service of democratic values. The assumption is that the two states will be politically rational. What the general public fails to recognize is that the solution has been discussed ad nauseam in Israel and is mostly rejected by the political leadership. Here is why:

The Israelis do not want a couple of hundred thousand angry Arabs at their doorstep. It does not matter how committed they are to peace and cooperation the history of the conflict is too intense to go away peacefully. There has been too little consideration about what an actual “day after” would look like and all aspects of Israeli culture and politics would be challenged. This day after must be prepared in three ways which have always been part of Israel’s demands during peace discussions. And each of these three criteria must be satisfactory to Israelis who currently find fault in all of them.

The first is a political consideration which assumes that the West Bank and Gaza are manageable at all. What political entity is currently in place that could guarantee a smooth transition to a selected form of government as well as access to legitimately operating political functions in the West Bank and Gaza? At present, such institutions do not exist, except for perhaps the PLA (Palestinian Liberation Authority) which is challenged by a majority that want the PLA dissolved. Security is always the primary concern for Israelis and would probably be the first agenda item for Israelis in the post-October 7^th era.

The Israelis care fundamentally about security. If you build, for example, a state that goes up to Israeli borders and extends current Palestinian territory then you are building a pathway that goes directly from the West Bank to the Arab states. Moreover, the slaughter of so many on October 7 certainly destabilized any sense of security Israelis might hold. They are currently still in her aftershock of October 7 and have much work to do to figure out new forms of security in the face of this new form of violent contact. Israelis are already building a buffer zone between their own borders and the space that extends beyond into the Gaza Strip as an early warning system for any future attacks the likes of October 7. And as you might easily see this buffer zone will require military protection or at a minimum long-term military management.

The economic issues are also overwhelming. The Palestinian political and economic structures should have been developing an indigenous economy. Instead, the West Bank and Gaza are rife with corruption and devoted too much time and attention to economic existence from the global economy and Palestinians living outside Palestine.

The two-state solution is an illusion

Another key issue is the balance of power in the area. Neither side is going to agree to an arrangement the disadvantages themselves yet almost no political or geographic arrangement results in the equality. Estimates are that about some new Palestine would only comprise about 20% of historic Palestine. This is bound to be a problem so intractable it may not be solvable. Israeli settlements have complicated the matter by increasing their size and presence in what is now Palestinian territory. Many settlements would have to be dissolved and removed. Violence and tension seems easy to imagine.

So many factors enter into discussions about the two-state solution and the problems and difficulties posed seem to be insurmountable as the two sides confront moral conflicts– that is, conflicts that are particularly resistant to resolution because they are identified as vital and not easily negotiable or discussable. They confront the existential nature of the two sides in the conflict and carry with them considerable emotions and passions. Both parties to the conflict feel vulnerable and threatened by the two-state solution by its very definition. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has morphed into a classic intractable moral conflict which is responsible for the failure of the creation of two viable states. What was once a possible solution is now political fantasy. There will be no two states.

Posted in Communication and Conflict Resolution

2 Comments

Don’t Think for Yourself: Get Your Opinions from Some Reliable Source

The below just needs to be said every once in a while.

An alarming number of Americans believe some Trumped up version of reality that is so far from the truth – and so outrageous – that you have to wonder what is happening to the political communication process. Of course, examples are easy: Hillary Clinton kept children in a basement, or Obama was actually born in Kenya and is not a “real” American, or Covid vaccinations are a government plot, ad infinitum. At first blush you just figure that these people are playing with you, that they don’t “really” believe such things. But then you discover that they are serious, and their delusions are legion.

And the majority of these theories are right wing theories that seem to be most susceptible. A band of conservatives who dislike a political candidate for a parallel reason are available for the next delusion. A common refrain is to “think for yourself.” They are encouraged to find information, process the information, and come to a conclusion. Consequently, to “be your own man” is somehow associated with an individualism and is sufficiently justificatory such that simply convincing yourself that you “thought for yourself” is good enough. I have an opinion and by God I’m going to stick to that opinion simply because it is mine.

I do the opposite. I tell the holder of these inaccurate beliefs to get their opinions from someone else. Don’t think for yourself because that will just lead you down a crooked path besieged on both sides by bad information, inaccurate facts, warped conclusions, and a general bias that reflects pre-existing attitudes that work like barriers to more defensible reasoning. This is no trivial matter because the people in the news who are delusional are not only the likes of QAnon, The Proud Boys, or evangelicals selling redemption for votes. Rather, they are prominent politicians, media figures, corporate leaders and their foundations, and yes US senators and congress men and women.

It is true enough that the left has some share of exaggerations about say political conspiracies, corporate plots, or climate change. But it is safe to say, and I believe this can be defended with empirical precision, that leftist and more liberal groups are not making wildly fringe arguments based on “the big lie” or Jigged-up fear about government plots in control of your body. Democrats are simply more likely to rely on science and trust the authority of experts along with an increased willingness to deliberate and subject ideas to the best forms of analysis and criticism.

Finally, we should not ignore the role of education with respect to reasoning and decision-making as well as recognizing false argument and various biases. Citizens in a democracy must learn how to make the best decisions possible and utilize the tools of reason and science as well as the humanities. Improving one’s ability to strengthen opinions takes time and experience. The education process is the best way to spend that time and gain that experience.

I would recommend the following book as an excellent place to grapple with these issues.

Steven Nadler and Lawrence Shapiro (2021). “When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People.” Princeton University press.

Posted on December 1, 2023 | Image

Nov 12

Posted by Donald Ellis

Finding New Ways to Communicate

I will admit that my first reaction to the attack on Israel by Hamas was to “unleash hell” in retaliation. Revenge is a difficult emotion to control. At times like this I get that sense of psychological surety as if I could somehow sweep Hamas away by flicking them off me like so many annoyances that can be easily disposed of. Military action lends itself well to this sort of thinking as it is usually associated with gaining ground or killing soldiers from the other side.

But, alas, this is not how foreign policy works. And there are clear operational and procedural steps that must be confronted if we want to truly solve the problem. Responding too aggressively will put the hostages in jeopardy, escalate the intensity of the potential outcomes, and increase the polarization that already exists between the two sides.

But trying to “solve the problem” is now just the problem. It has become apparent to me that the typical attempts at conflict management and resolution, whatever you want to call it, have failed.

The political arena is filled with seminars, discussion groups, training, and various forms of control mechanisms designed to discourage aggressiveness or change attitudes about the other group. And I have been a part of plenty of them. These groups typically draw on social science theory in an effort to change the reality of the conflicting groups. For example, members of conflicting groups (e.g. Israelis-Palestinians, Blacks-Whites, Muslims-Jews) might meet on a regular basis and engage in some joint project. This, according to theory, stimulates collaboration and teaches the participants to learn the habits of cooperation.

Israelis have been lectured to and chided more than a recalcitrant child and even so they woke up one morning and saw the genocidal monster called Hamas in the backyard. Things are not going well here. Still, how do you deal with a stubborn monster. The monster is not rational to the extent that there is not some justifiable relationship between the monsters’ behavior and a desirable outcome. In Hamas’s. Statement of Principles the destruction of the state of Israel and reclaiming the land are foundational goals that guide Hamas’s behavior. Hamas believes that the entire Zionist project is illegitimate including the historical documents that established the state of Israel. The land is indivisible and sacred. This leaves no room for the State of Israel. It means that nothing is negotiable, nothing can be shared, and neither side can tolerate the other’s presence.

It is clear that Israelis were caught flat-footed, and the charge that Netanyahu took his eye off the ball as he spent his time trying to save his political life, is defensible. Netanyahu speaks to the matter of leadership during a time of crisis and its role in setting the conditions of the conflict to the best of his ability. But Netanyahu will not be ousted so easily. He has the respect of many Israelis and they believe he can protect them during a time of war. As Einstein observed, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We must find new ways to communicate. But what kind of communication understands killing babies and children? How do we learn new ways to communicate when mass killing is the norm? How do we learn new ways to communicate when both are labeled morally unacceptable by the other? Recently, an Israeli Defense Forces specialist observed that Israel will have to take steps that are wider and typically considered unacceptable by the United States. If so, we will have circled around to the beginning where, once again, we will have done the same thing with the same results, and we will have to find new we ways to communicate.

Posted in Communication and Conflict Resolution, Peace and Conflict Politics, Political Conflict

Comments Off on

Polarization: Or, How We Came to Distort Reality So Thoroughly

Aug 16

Posted by Donald Ellis

Polarization: or How We Came to Distort Reality so Thoroughly

I like to talk politics. And I’m really not so concerned about “winning an argument” or crushing someone’s position just to satisfy myself. No, I’m more interested in how they think. Sometimes, dare I say much of the time, listening to some argue politics is just appalling. Their command of data and facts, along with reasoning processes that accompany such facts are just debilitating.

So how is it that your cranky old uncle at Thanksgiving can ruin the day with his cockamamie opinions; how is it that the nice kid you socialize with can actually believe that Hillary Clinton has secrets in her home basement; or, can you really prove to me that the government is trying to vaccinate people so I can control them.

How people configure a set of ideas that are bound together by some mechanism or functional interdependence is the real question. Examining someone’s beliefs or ideological system always unearths a specified attitude or belief that goes with a collection of others. We assume that a person, for example, who holds a conservative position in one capacity will hold additional beliefs and attitudes in the same conservative capacity.

For example, if a person strongly believes in lower taxes they are probably conservative and believe in fewer government programs supported by those taxes. Such a conservative probably believes in strong protections for the American values system and is thereby supportive of the military and military interventions. Our hypothetical political character opposes federal aid to education, a state-controlled economy, and union organization.

The person who supports this reasonably coherent political position has been labeled an “ideologue.” But the question that is difficult pertains to how these ideas are packaged together and considered to represent an orderly and defensible ideological system. Such a system, as briefly described above, is a fairly consistent conservative position that is recognizable and defensible. But what happens when that collection of ideas gets contaminated by nonlogical, or empirically indefensible, or deeply personal and subjective ideas that are seeking to find a different order, one organized more by personal emotions or feelings rather than issue-based analysis.

One of the problems of contemporary debate over controversial issues is the attachment of emotions to the various planks in the system described above. So, one person might hold and represent the conservative position above but “hate” the other person and feel that they are personally morally degenerate or intellectually dishonest. They then turn any engagement about the issues into a personal and emotional clash that has little to do with the issue and much to do with the polarization that results.

The result is increased attention to other groups that individuals identify with. These are ethnic, religious, or political groups and they are typically associated with intense emotions and strong feelings of defensiveness. The participants in the conflict move away from issue-based matters and are more drawn to emotional bonds which are characterized by deep psychological reactions to threat and the various meaning distortions that accompany group identity.

This results in a downward spiraling of emotions that feeds the divisions between groups. We can see the consequences of this in the current state of American politics – polarization.