Urban Ethics in the Anthropocene by Jeffrey K. H. Chan

Author:Jeffrey K. H. Chan
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer Singapore, Singapore

The Ethics of Consensus Building : Negotiation Tactics and Phronesis Amid Conflicts

Because consensus building has to rely on collaborative dialogues, and because success in collaborative dialogues at least hinges on the cooperation and other interactions of stakeholders, ethical issues tend to arise from the realities of non-cooperation and other non-ideal interactions between stakeholders during the dialogic process for consensus building . As much as collaboration is about cooperative behaviors, collaboration is also about conflict (Innes & Booher, 2015, p. 203). How stakeholders respond to internal conflicts that are triggered within the dialogic process is anticipated to form one major area of ethical concern.

Conventionally, dialogues are characterized as constructive activities that generate mutual understanding, trust, and goodwill. But genuine dialogues take time to develop, and the beginning of any dialogic process can be expected to comprise of some negotiation activities between conflicting stakeholders. On this, one would expect stakeholders to be guided by rational calculation and the pursuit of value-maximizing strategies during a negotiation (see Schelling, 1971). But to negotiate to win is not wrong and “no apologies are necessary for pursuing selfish rather than altruistic goals” (Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987, p. 238). To win, however, is never to be conflated with ‘to win at all costs’. Advocates of collaborative dialogues are rightly apprehensive of this sentiment to win at all costs, where there is little ethical limit, if any, at the beginning of the dialogue itself, and where the aggression to win can irreversibly alter the formative atmosphere for constructive dialogic deemed critical for consensus building .

Importantly, any stakeholder participating in the negotiation is always subjected to an ethical tension where the other party is always at once means to this stakeholder’s ends but also a human being who demands dignified treatment (Cohen, 2004). And so to drive a hard bargain early on usually means not only faking strengths or concealing vulnerabilities in order to secure a more favorable outcome (Margalit, 2010), but also relying on various deceptive or coercive tactics to bring the other parties to do what the more persuasive party wants. This instinct to gain an early edge by relying on these questionable tactics can unwittingly frustrate further attempts to conduct collaborative dialogues. And because collaborative dialogues require repeated cooperation between stakeholders, it is necessary to curb this instinct for gaining an early edge over others. Where interdependence between parties is perceived to be required repeatedly, there is an incentive to cooperate rather than to compete (Axelrod, 1984). Indeed, a wise outcome may be much more urgent in many public conflicts than just winning the negotiation (Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987, p. 243).

But what is wisdom in a conflict? For acting wisely under complex and contradictory goals, the Aristotelian concept of phronesis may be relevant. Phronesis , otherwise also translated as ‘prudence’ or ‘practical wisdom’, is an Aristotelian concept used to describe the competency of managing practical affairs successfully (Aristotle, 2005). Implied in phronesis is a kind of virtue ethics—human excellence for understanding the moral demands of the situation and acting well within it.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.