Democracy & argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, Prof Donald G. Ellis

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Democracy & argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, Prof Donald G. Ellis by Mind Map: Democracy & argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, Prof Donald G. Ellis

1. Research

1.1. Built statistical models

1.1.1. Trust proves critical fr reaching solution

1.1.1.1. Maoz & Ellis, 2009

1.1.2. Peace education

1.1.2.1. Just reading the other group's narrative unfreezes the views of participants & less advocate war

1.2. Devised a coding scheme

1.2.1. Dugri & Mussyara style of speech

1.2.2. Frame analysis

1.2.3. Semantic classification if the utterances of Israeli & Palestinian arguments

1.2.4. Then put the codes in a matrix & learned patterns

1.2.4.1. What's the type of response you'll expect aft a certain type, at each group

1.3. Conclusions

1.3.1. Difference in argument patterns between Israelites & Palestinians

1.3.2. Contact does moderate Israeli argument tendencies, but does not eliminate it

2. Online deliberation

2.1. Create a Public Sphere

2.1.1. See

2.1.1.1. Habermas

2.1.2. In Arab revolutions, FaceBook made a difference

2.1.3. Create habits of communication

2.1.4. Enable

2.1.4.1. Partcipate in other intelligence

2.1.4.2. Go beyond bounded rationality

2.1.4.3. Be exposed to new knowledge

2.1.5. There are conditions for this to work

2.1.5.1. Eg

2.1.5.1.1. Equality

2.1.5.1.2. Accessibility

2.1.5.1.3. Diversity

2.1.6. Challenge: create a democratic space, not just a commons

2.1.7. Reduced Que environment

2.1.7.1. Increase the task focus

2.1.8. Distinction between Dialog & Deliberation

2.1.8.1. Dialog is just for emotional & psychological purposes

2.2. Foundational logic

2.2.1. Politics = solve inequality

2.2.1.1. Material & symbolic resources unequally distributed

2.2.2. Arguments are the process of solving conflicts

2.2.2.1. Hammering out interest based differences

2.3. Discursive Democracy

2.3.1. Contestatory

2.3.2. Public

2.3.3. Habermasian ideal

2.3.4. Mention his book on transformative communication

2.3.4.1. Three incommensurables .. communities

2.3.5. Arguments need to be justified

2.3.6. Deliberation is error reduction

2.3.6.1. Not negotiation

2.3.6.2. Deliberation is epistemic

2.3.7. Not for like-minded groups

2.3.8. "enclave polarization in like minded grous"

2.3.9. Try to solve pragmatic problems - low-level abstraction

2.3.9.1. Not in the level of religious/scientific reasons

3. About

3.1. Hartford Uni

3.2. Now in sabbatical teaching in Ariel uni

3.3. Interested in

3.3.1. Media & tech in respect to conflicts (ethnic &c)

3.3.2. Track 2 communication

3.3.2.1. Not diplomatic, rather communities

3.3.2.2. Grass roots

3.4. Recent book:

3.4.1. Deliberative communication