She devotes one chapter to defining and explaining each of these ten elements.
Yes, I would even agree that would-be interveners should work to inculcate these ten elements in the participants in the conflict-to-be-resolved inasmuch as it is possible for the interveners to inculcate these values and qualities in the participants in the conflict.
But the participants in certain conflicts are not going to buy into these ten values and qualities. Instead, the participants are going to resist buying into all ten of them.
If there were no resistance to buying into these ten values and qualities, then we would be settling conflicts one after another after another. Pow! Pow! Pow! Show us a conflict we cannot resolve with these ten values and qualities, eh?!
But in her cheerleader enthusiasm for her own prescriptions about dignity, she does not consider the possibility that there might be intractable conflicts in which her prescriptions would not help resolve the conflict at long last.
But the Tea Party Republicans were not swayed by President Obama's various overtures to them. Why not? In terms of her ten values and qualities, (6) fairness appears to have been the principle point of disagreement in that conflict. I myself happen to think that the Tea Party Republicans were the ones who were being unfair in that conflict. But that is not how they saw themselves in that conflict. (In addition, they may have feared for (3) safety of their elected positions.)
It does not necessarily follow that we should throw out (6) fairness as one consideration in trying to resolve conflicts. But it does follow that we should recognize that people can and do disagree about what is fair in certain circumstances and what is not fair in those circumstances.
Hicks also explicitly names and describes and explains the role of (3) acknowledgment and the role of (4) recognition in conflict resolution. But acknowledgment and recognition are two of the most frequently repeated words in Warwick Wadlington's book READING FAULKNERIAN TRAGEDY (1987). In other words, Wadlington works with these two key conceptual constructs to define and explain what he means by Faulknerian tragedy. In literary criticism, tragedy is an honorific term, which is the way in which Wadlington uses it. I myself prefer to speak of the tragic sense of life. According to Wadlington's view of Faulkner, Faulkner dwells extensively on calling our attention to the tragic dimension of human life. According to Wadlington, Faulkner does this by in effect reminding us of the importance of acknowledgment and recognition. When we do not receive sufficient acknowledgment and recognition from other people around us, we suffer. We are diminished. When this happens, it is tragic. So Faulkner and Wadlington have provided strong support for Hicks' claims regarding the importance of acknowledgment and recognition.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
