263 Summary • Step 3: Distinguish alternatives of oneself: in a fusion of horizons, parties can distinguish at least two alternatives of oneself. The alternatives of oneself differ in some part of the network of commitments related to the conflict topic. Note that it concerns alternatives of oneself and not for oneself, because it concerns (part of) someone’s identity, or self-understanding. Several alternatives are conceivable for the part of the network of commitments that is associated with the conflict topic. • Step 4: Internal and external consistency in networks of commitments: based on the commitment to resolving the conflict, both parties investigate which alternatives of oneself are consistent with their own entire network of commitments (internal consistency) and which are also mutually consistent (external consistency). Consistency means that there are no conflicting commitments. To achieve consistency, the scope of the conflict can be increased, or alternatives of oneself are considered that relate to a larger part of one’s network of commitments. As a larger portion of one’s network of commitments becomes involved, the transformation becomes ‘deeper’. • Step 5: Transformation: identification as a new alternative of oneself: when parties consider a new set of commitments as part of their network of commitments instead of the original ones, transformation takes place. Because the network of commitments constitutes the individual’s self-understanding, or identity, that identity transforms as original commitments are replaced by new ones. If the new networks of commitments from both parties are consistent internally and externally,a transformation has taken place that has stably resolved the original conflict. The solution is stable, because the identities of both parties are transformed. They have no rational reason for other choices of action. In all steps of the Transformative Dialogue, the autonomy of those involved is guaranteed. However, an urgent question still is: “How does this form of agreement about everyone’s identity relate to the idea that someone is autonomous if he or she lives and acts in accordance with his or her own values, beliefs, reasons and commitments?” Intersubjective authenticity vs. a fixed identity The Transformative Dialogue assumes that people can think of several alternative versions of themselves. If one or more persons regard their own identity as fixed, then there is no possibility to distinguish such alternatives of oneself. In view of the intractability, this seems to be exactly the case in IRMCs: parties regard their identity as fixed and defend it fiercely. It might still be possible to understand another in a fusion of horizons, but not to distinguish alternatives of oneself. The insight can then be, for example: “if I had been born in your context, I would have been like you, but now I have become who I am, and that is unchangeable”. Based on insights from developmental psychology, I show in section 5.2 that the idea of a fixed identity can be exposed as a misunderstanding. Moreover, autonomy and authenticity should not be understood individually, but intersubjectively. People grow up within a community that shares beliefs, norms and values, or in other words within a ‘horizon of meaning’. Step A
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw