 |
 |
|
Introduction:
Sanda Kaufman, professor of planning and public administration
at the Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University, advises
intervenors against treating a conflict as symmetrical in the name of
fairness or impartiality. Besides being inaccurate, this may lead to conflict strategies
that do not correspond to the reality of a given situation. She uses
the conflict in the Middle East to illustrate this point.
| |
This rough transcript provides a text alternative to audio. We apologize for occasional errors and unintelligible sections (which are marked with ???).
Symmetry and Fairness in the Middle East
Sanda Kaufman
Professor of Planning and Public Administration at the Levin College of Urban
Affairs, Cleveland State University
| |
Q: Let's use the state with the Middle East example for a moment and talk
about interveners' perceptions of symmetry and fairness when you go into a
conflict you're mediating or some sort of process that involves two parties,
which we will either assume are symmetrical or treat as if they were.
A: I have been pondering this situation and now I have to say that it's
partly because I am a stakeholder and every now and then I have this sense of
lack of fairness and lack of justice in the way that people treat the conflict
and talk about it and describe it, very often out of necessity to appear neutral
or just. People talk about the situation in the Middle East by saying, the
Israelis did this, but the Palestinians do this too. Everything is held as
equivalent and our sense of fairness is that if we didn't do this it would be
unjust to one of the parties. But I think that that's much more an artifact of
our perception of justice than what actually happens on the ground, and I also
think that this distortion that comes from our need to portray everything as
symmetrical has important consequences for what we propose as fixes and for how
we deal with the situation.
...
One may care more or less about this, but just stating the fact
should be correct and should match the reality rather than the symmetry.
...
Q: So the initial approach and framing of the conflict from an outsider who
says that these parties are symmetrically good or bad, or have done
symmetrically peace-building or peace-destroying actions, will determine the
process that you use to mediate the conflict, and ultimately will distort what's
really on the ground so that you won't come up with a good agreement to settle.
A: Actually, I don't want to say good or bad because I don't perceive these
things necessarily as good or bad. They are whatever.
...
But if we want to say facts
matter, they should basically get through in some way and inform what we propose
as strategies because then we're going to be more successful if our strategies
match the reality on the ground, then I think this is very important. Again, it's
another form of humility to keep checking that it's not a frame and that it's
actually the reality that we're talking about. Taking the good-bad dichotomy out
of the description of a situation probably helps. Just recognizing facts on the
ground is very helpful. Labeling them good or bad puts us in a situation where
we feel the need to balance, as it were, and make it symmetrical so that
nobody's good or bad in the situation.
|
 |
 |
 |