This article presents experiences from projects aimed at training citizens (especially environmental leaders, local government officials, and mayors) in group decision processes, public participation procedures, conflict resolution, and mediation approaches. The general purpose of these activities has been to assist the development of democratic skills in citizens with decision-making power. Third-sector organizations (nongovernmental, nonprofit organizations) play a significant role in this process of challenging old values and introducing new ones through open communication. The author generalizes from his experience in conducting training over the last three years.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Carl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950).
2.
2. R. Risher, E. Kopelman, and A. Kupfer-Schneider, Beyond Machiavelli (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 4.
3.
3. As discussed in, for example, R. J. Fisher, “Towards a Social-Psychological Model of Intergroup Conflict,” in Conflict and Social Psychology, ed. K. S. Larsen (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1993), pp. 109-122.
4.
game research, as in D. G. Pruitt and M. J. Kimmel, “Twenty Years of Experimental Gaming: Critique, Synthesis and Suggestions for the Future,”Annual Review of Psychology, 28:363-392 (1977).
5.
5. The following generalizations are supported by the findings of several sociologists' research on social structure, value preferences, political sociology, and urban sociology, including P. Machonin, J. Musil, S. Szomolanyi, V. Krivy, and J. Pasiak. These observations are also related to findings of Shalom H. Schwartz and A. Bardi, “Influences of Adaptation to Communist Rule on Value Priorities in Eastern Europe,”Political Psychology, 18:385-410 (1997). Schwartz and Bardi's data show that the cultures in these post-Communist countries are very low on autonomy (on encouraging the individual to take initiative and to develop his or her unique ideas and actions), on egalitarianism (on taking personal responsibility for socially just behavior concerned with the welfare of the society), and on mastery (on assertively trying to change the world and mold it to meet one's own [or one's group's] goals and needs). Their data show that these cultures are very high on conservatism, or embeddedness (on maintaining smooth relations within the in-group and not standing out), on maintaining the status quo of mutual obligations, and on harmony (on avoiding interpersonal conflict and fitting into the environment rather than trying to change it). While there is some overlap with collectivism (from the collectivism-individualism dimension introduced by G. Hofstede), one significant difference is that these cultures are not particularly high on hierarchy (on seeing ascribed roles as central and preferring to maintain the social fabric by meeting role obligations of subservience to superiors and control over inferiors).
6.
6. M. Butoraet al., “The Third Sector, Voluntarism and NGOs in Slovakia (1995-Spring 1996),” in Slovakia 1995: A Comprehensive Report on the State of Society, ed. M. Butora and P. Huncik (Bratislava: Sandor Marai Foundation, 1996).
7.
7. Ibid.
8.
8. The prevalence of such political attitudes is empirically documented in “Actual Problems of Slovakia—December 1994” (Report, FOCUS, Bratislava, 1995).
9.
9. In H. Feger, “Gruppensolidaritaet und Konflikt,” in Sozialpsychologie, 2, ed. C. F. Graumann (Halbband: Forschungsbereiche, Goettingen, Hogrefe, 1972), pp. 1594-1653.
10.
10. K. E. Boulding, Conflict and Defense: A General Theory (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), p. 5.
11.
11. R. J. Rummel, Understanding Conflict and War (New York: John Wiley, 1976), p. 238.
12.
12. J. Folberg and A. Taylor, Mediation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984), p. 19.
13.
13. L. A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1956).
14.
14. Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton, Dohoda jistá (Prague: Management Press, 1994).
15.
15. M. Juergensmeyer, Fighting Fair: A Nonviolent Strategy for Resolving Everyday Conflicts (New York: Harper & Row, 1986).
16.
16. Fisher, Kopelman, and Kupfer-Schneider, Beyond Machiavelli.
17.
R.A.B. Bush and J. P. Folger, The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994).
18.
18. R. H. Lauer and W. H. Handel, Social Psychology: The Theory of Symbolic Interactionism (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1983).
19.
19. Note that these rules can serve as counterprinciples to the rules listed earlier as rules of totalitarian communication.
20.
20. Arnold Mindell, “Tribal Life and Group Processes” (Lecture, Portland, OR, May 1993).
21.
21. G. Romme, “Making Organizational Learning Work: Consent and Double Linking Between Circles,”European Management Journal, 14:69-75 (1996).
22.
22. Unfortunately, it is not within the scope of this article to analyze different theoretical approaches to the nature of consensus (deterministic, voluntaristic, and societal guidance theory) as discussed in Amitai Etzioni, A Responsive Society (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991). Acceptance of a particular theory critically influences the practical steps needed to reach consensus. The societal guidance approach, where “consensus is the result of a process in which both given preferences expressed `upward' (for example, via elections) and downward efforts (government campaigns) affect the outcome, resulting in a changing consensus” (ibid., p. 38), is most similar to the open communication skills described.
23.
23. Václav Havel, in Butoraet al., Slovakia 1995.
24.
24. J. S. Fishkin, Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991).
25.
25. R. A. Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics (Prague: Victoria, 1995).
26.
26. A. Agh, “Citizenship and Civil Society in Central Europe,” in The Condition of Citizenship, ed. B. van Steenberger (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 108-126.
27.
27. R. Dahrendorf, The Modern Social Conflict (Bratislava: Archa, 1991).
28.
28. Training offered, organized, and conducted by governmental organizations focuses mostly on content (knowledge, information, legislation, and so forth) and rarely on process (social skills).
29.
29. These two projects were carried out in cooperation with the PHARE Democracy Program and the Environmental Training Project of the University of Minnesota, respectively.
30.
30. P. Watzlawiket al., Pragmatics of Human Communication (New York: W. W. Norton, 1967).
31.
31. G. Summers, Conflict: Gateway to Community—Process-Oriented Conflict Resolution: An Interview with the Founder, Arnold Mindell (Portland, OR: Union Institute, Process Work Center, 1994), p. 45.
