265 Summary commitments. Just as truth is the concept that marks agreement on objective claims, and justice is the concept that marks agreement on social claims, so authenticity marks agreement on subjective claims. In other words, it is authentic to be committed that (all) others can realize their fundamental values. The theory of the Transformative Dialogue links each person’s own particular selfexpression to the universal commitment to the expression of everyone else’s particular identity. Justification of the commitment to the Transformative Dialogue Until now it has been assumed that the parties are committed to a stable and just solution to the conflict, and - since the Transformative Dialogue makes this possible - therefore to the Transformative Dialogue itself. I will argue that this commitment is inevitable. In the first place, the commitment to resolving an IRMC is necessary because the continuation of the conflict hinders parties in their self-expression. In short, it is prudential to want to resolve the conflict. If oppressive resolution strategies are rejected for ethical, moral and/or prudential reasons, the Transformative Dialogue remains. Second, the commitment to resolving an IRMC is morally obligatory. After all, in an IRMC the parties do not mutually recognize the value of each other’s identity. An IRMC implies the absence of recognition. The absence of recognition is unjust, because it is only possible to express one’s own identity fully in a situation of recognition. And that everyone can in principle express his or her own identity is the desideratum of this thesis. In short, the commitment to resolving an IRMC through a Transformative Dialogue is morally justified, because that dialogue discerns a stable and just solution that constitutes mutual recognition. However, both the prudential and moral arguments for commitment to the Transformative Dialogue are not justified from the perspective of parties in an IRMC. The parties in an IRMC have a fixed self-understanding in relation to the subject of conflict. That is why the conflict is so intractable. Although this belief rests on a misunderstanding, it cannot be understood as a misunderstanding within the horizon of meaning of parties with a fixed self-understanding. After all, in order to understand it as a misunderstanding, this party would have to have already abandoned the conviction of a fixed self-understanding. And that is precisely not the case in an IRMC. Therefore, I give an additional argument in which I show that it is self-defeating for a party with the conviction of a fixed self-understanding not to be committed to the Transformative dialogue. This argument for the inevitability of the commitment to resolving an IRMC through the Transformative Dialogue is summarized as follows: 1. People (in an IRMC) act purposefully to realize authentic self-expression. This should be assumed, if there is a conflict. 2. To realize authentic self-expression, the Transformative Dialogue is indispensable. Relationships of social recognition are necessary for authentic self-expression. It is possible that an identity-related coordination problem arises with someone with whom a person maintains relationships of social recognition. The only way to solve this while A
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw