Recently, I have been reflecting upon a couple of points, which are also key in my PhD research. Firstly, we tend to reason too much according to the ‘friend-enemy’ dichotomy, which also equals another very common dichotomy: ‘good-bad’. In other words, we delude ourselves into thinking that, on Earth, we can clearly distinguish between ‘good people’ and ‘bad people’ (e.g., Rosenberg 2015; Moro and Faranda 2017; see also Morin 2015). In this dichotomy, we, and those close to us, are always the ‘good’ ones, those who hold the Truth and Justice, while others are always the ‘bad’ (or ‘evil’) ones to punish (ibid.).

​

The second point concerns negotiations. In these last months, with regard to the war in Ukraine, we have been talking quite a lot about negotiations. The key message appears to be that negotiations are useless; that one negotiates only when the enemy – in this case, Russia – withdraws from the invaded territory; and that the only negotiated agreement that one (Ukraine) can get from Russia is that Ukrainian territory gets divided.

​

I don’t agree with any of these points of view, as, in my opinion, they miss the multiple possibilities – even the power, if we like – of dialoguing. First of all, I don’t believe that there is a right moment to dialogue (in the literature on conflict resolution, this is called ‘ripe moment’, as defined by Zartman (2001)). I believe that a dialogue has to be continuous, independent of the surrounding circumstances. Second of all, of course, if I approach negotiations thinking already that it is not possible to dialogue with the counterpart and/or that the only possible solution is splitting the territory, it will surely be that way and there won’t be any other chance (e.g., see Rosenberg 2015; Sclavi 2003).

​

Instead, I believe that approaching a dialogue open-mindedly, trying to understand which issues are really behind (I don’t believe, in fact, that the aim of invading a territory is simply expanding or strengthening one’s borders. Rather, I do believe that it is the explicitation of something else, some other needs which perhaps the invader themselves ignores (e.g., see Rosenberg 2015; Burton 1979)), will open up different and maybe many opportunities, which before we might not have even considered (e.g., see Sclavi 2008; 2003).

 

Short bibliographical list

• Burton, John. 1979. Deviance, Terrorism & War. The Process of Solving Unsolved Social and Political Problems. Martin Robertson.

• Morin, Edgar. 2015. Insegnare a Vivere. Manifesto per Cambiare L'Educazione. Azzate (Varese): Raffaello Cortina Editore*.

• *---. 2014. Enseigner à vivre. ACTES SUD/PLAY BAC.

• Moro, Agnese, and Adriana Faranda. 2017. Incontri possibili. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwTaYZwrJcs&t=1s.

• Rosenberg, Marshall B. 2015. Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. 3rd ed. PuddleDancer Press.

• Sclavi, Marianella. 2003. Arte di ascoltare e mondi possibili. Come si esce dalle cornici di cui siamo parte. Bruno Mondadori.

• ---. 2008. An Italian Lady Goes To The  Bronx. Ethnographic Study: A Humor-Based Methodology For City-Planners, Teachers, Sociologists and Administrators. IPOC, Pietro Condemi.

• Zartman, I. William. 2001. 'The Timing of Peace Initiatives: Hurting Stalemates and Ripe Moments'. The Global Review of Ethnopolitics 1 (1): 8-18.