Ontological Conflicts as the Deeper Source of Many Political Conflicts

Discussion

Zack Walsh:

"A growing number of scholars such as William Connolly, Sergei Prozorov, Bruno Latour, Marisol de la Cadena, and Mario Blaser see ontological conflicts as the deeper source of many political conflicts. Alexandros Kioupkiolis, a political scientist from Aristotle University, noted that attempts at political reform within the current paradigm are largely meaningless, because the paradigm itself is what drives today’s social and ecological crises. It is really important therefore to discuss ontological issues to get at the root of contemporary political problems. In such discussions, however, it is difficult to determine which ontology (if any) offers a more accurate description of the world. Conversation can become challenging as you try to reconcile different ontologies, so it is important to consider how we speak about ontology. In Sustaining Affirmation (2000), Stephen White explores how a “weak” ontology can affirm political commitments without recourse to traditional or dogmatic foundations of thought. Process-relational thinkers defend such a style characterized by openness, self-restraint, and humility, but Alexandros admits, it is not universal—it emerges out of a particular Western, liberal context— so it does not fully resolve the paradox of how to reconcile mutually exclusive ontologies.

A core question is how to facilitate the highest level of collective intelligence with groups whose members have different core beliefs, languages, and cultural values. Ferananda Ibarra, co-director of the Commons Engine, shared how using “prime language” helps us remain open to a variety of conflicting, ontological standpoints. To practice prime language, you eliminate the verb “to be.” This allows you to speak from your experience without invalidating other possible experiences. We need to be mindful not to discuss theories of existence as if they represent the only truth. Lieselotte Viaene, an anthropologist at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, said the verb “to be” in fact does not exist among the indigenous peoples she’s been working with.

Another requirement of healthy dialogue is to address personality features that can strongly affect the quality of collective interaction. In the course of the conversation it became clear that enabling dialogue across ontological differences may pose particular demands to the process design and facilitation. For example it may be extremely difficult to facilitate conversation among strangers who feel vulnerable sharing deeply held beliefs. Also, there are people who are more or less assertive, emotionally sensitive or expressive, introverted or extroverted. Community agreements and rules of good conduct are needed to facilitate democratic and mutually respectful interaction. During the workshop, as inter-personal conflicts emerged, Brooke Lavelle, president of the Courage of Care Coalition, and Lucien Demaris, co-director of Relational Uprising, expertly facilitated a session to heal inter-personal conflicts, using several of the contemplative and somatic based practices they have developed." (https://cdn6.commonsstrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Zack-Walsh_Ontology-as-a-Hidden-Driver-of-Politics_def2.pdf?)