Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 72 - Sayı: 1

Opportunities and Limits of Non-Violent Communication Model in Political Conflict Resolution

SİYASİ ÇATIŞMALARIN ÇÖZÜMÜNDE ŞİDDETSİZ İLETİŞİM MODELİNİN OLANAK ve KISITLILIKLARI

Pages
99–131
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The utility of a multilevel analytical framework and the renewal of the mezzo- and macro-level theories‟ presumptions on human nature with novel findings in psychology and neuroscience are stressed in order to break the chain of traumas and the circle of violence

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article examines the opportunities and limits of Rosenberg‟s non-violent communication model in ethnic conflict resolution processes through a multi-level analytical framework.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The model‟s presumptions on human nature and conflict resolution are analyzed with reference to the findings in psychology and neuroscience.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The utility of a multilevel analytical framework and the renewal of the mezzo- and macro-level theories‟ presumptions on human nature with novel findings in psychology and neuroscience are stressed in order to break the chain of traumas and the circle of violence
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This article examines the opportunities and limits of Rosenberg‟s non-violent communication model in ethnic conflict resolution processes through a multi-level analytical framework. The model‟s presumptions on human nature and conflict resolution are analyzed with reference to the findings in psychology and neuroscience. Based on this analysis, significance of variation in individual capacities as regards their potential for inciting violent conflicts and hindering peace processes is accentuated. The utility of a multilevel analytical framework and the renewal of the mezzo- and macro-level theories‟ presumptions on human nature with novel findings in psychology and neuroscience are stressed in order to break the chain of traumas and the circle of violence

Özet

Bu makalede, Rosenberg"in şiddetsiz iletişim modelinin, etnik gruplar arası siyasi çatışmaların çözümü açısından sunduğu olanak ve kısıtlılıklar çok düzlemli bir çerçeve üzerinden değerlendirilmektedir. Modelin çatışma çözümüne ve insan doğasına dair kabulleri, ruh ve sinir bilim bulgularına göndermede bulunarak irdelenmektedir. Modelin analizinden hareketle, şiddetli çatışmalara yol açma ve barış inşası sürecini tıkama potansiyelleri bakımından farklılaşan bireysel kapasitelerin göz önünde bulundurulmasının önemi vurgulanmaktadır. Travmaların zincirleme etkisinin ve şiddet döngüsünün kırılabilmesi bakımından, çok düzlemli bir çözümleme çerçevesi benimsenmesinin ve mezo ve makro düzlemlerde yer alan teorilerin insan doğasına dair kabullerinin ruh ve sinir bilim bulgularını takip ederek yenilenmesinin faydalı olduğu ortaya konmaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

SELÇUK, F. Ü. (2022). Opportunities and Limits of Non-Violent Communication Model in Political Conflict Resolution. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt: 72 - Sayı: 1, 99–131. https://ajindex.com/articles/442957

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Althusser, Louis (1971), “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (London: New Left Books): 121-173.
  2. Antonucci, Ami Sheth, David A. Gansler, Simon Tan, Rafeeque Bhadelia, Sam Patz ve Carl Fulwiler (2006), “Orbitofrontal Correlates of Aggression and Impulsivity in Psychiatric Patients”, Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 147 (2): 213-220.
  3. Bader, Elizabeth E. (2011), “Self, Identity and the IDR Cycle: Understanding the Deeper Meaning of „Face‟ in Mediation”, International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 8 (4): 301- 324. Balasco, Lauren Marie (2013), “The Transitions of Transitional Justice: Mapping the Waves From Promise to Practice”, Journal of Human Rights, 12 (2): 198-216.
  4. Baumeister, Roy F. ve Kathleen D. Vohs (2001), “Narcissism as Addiction to Self-Esteem”, Psychological Inquiry, 12 (4): 206-210.
  5. Bernard, Larry (2014), “Motivation and Borderline Personality Disorder, Psychopathy, and Narcissism”, Individual Differences Research, 12 (1): 12-30.
  6. Blair, R. James R. (2013), “The Neurobiology of Psychopathic Traits in Youths”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14 (11): 786-799.
  7. Blair, R. James R. ve Tatia M. C. Lee (2013), “The Social Cognitive Neuroscience of Aggression, Violence, and Psychopathy”, Social Neuroscience, 8 (2): 108-111.
  8. Board, Belinda Jane ve Katarina Fritzon (2005), “Disordered Personalities at Work”, Psychology, Crime & Law, 11 (1): 17-32.
  9. Church, Cheyanne ve Mark M. Rogers (2006), “Designing for Results: Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programs”, Search for Common Ground, http://www.sfcg.org/Documents/manualintro.pdf (01.10.2014).
  10. Cozolino, Louis (2014), İnsan İlişkilerinin Nörobilimi: Bağlanma ve Sosyal Beynin Gelişimi (İstanbul: Psikoterapi Enstitüsü Eğitim Yayınları) (Çev. Mirel Benveniste). Decety, Jean ve Margarita Svetlova (2012), “Putting Together Phylogenetic and Ontogenetic Perspectives on Empathy”, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2 (1): 1-24.
  11. Denson, Thomas F., William C. Pederson, Jaclyn Ronquillo ve Anirvan S. Nandy (2009), “The Angry Brain: Neural Correlates of Anger, Angry Rumination, and Aggressive Personality”, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21 (4): 734-744.
  12. Dolan, Mairead C. (2010), “What Imaging Tells Us About Violence in Anti-Social Men”, Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 20 (3): 199-214.
  13. Eagleman, David (2013), Incognito (İstanbul: Domingo) (Çev. Zeynep Arık Tozar). Eastman, Nigel ve Colin Campbell (2006), “Neuroscience and