Psychologically-Informed Diplomacy

by Psychology Roots
5 views
A+A-
Reset

Psychologically-Informed Diplomacy

Here in this post, we are discussing and learning about “Psychologically-Informed Diplomacy”.  You can read more about psychology-related material on our website. Keep visiting Psychology Roots.

Psychologically-Informed Diplomacy

Psychoanalysis has something useful to give diplomacy: the capacity to listen intently. As Theodor Reik famously said, this is “listening with the third ear” to issues that lay beyond the surface of language, to things that aren’t explicitly spoken or thought about. Psychoanalytically informed diplomacy stretches beyond political utterances to an unconscious agenda. Diplomatic discussion benefits from its psychological perspective.

Psychologically-Informed Diplomacy

Psychologically-Informed Diplomacy


As director of the International Dialogue Initiative (IDI), psychologist Jerry Fromm asserts that diplomacy ignores the “ability to talk about sentiments,” despite the fact that it is essential to any attempt at conflict settlement.
During negotiations, it’s easy to pick up on tangled strands of an individual’s terrible past, as well as the trauma of a much larger historical period. Loss of territory, war, or status are examples of this. For Muslims, it’s the establishment of the Caliphate; for Serbs, it’s the Battle of Kosovo; and for the Greeks, it’s the collapse of the Roman Empire.
Consider also what Russian President Vladimir Putin considers the biggest calamity of the 20th century: the fall of the Soviet Union.
An important link has been shown between collective trauma and national identity, according to recent psychological research. Vamik Volkan, a psychologist at the University of Virginia Medical School’s Center for the Study of Mind and Human Interaction, worked diplomatically with Estonians and Russians in border towns of the newly independent Estonia in the early 1990s.
During debate concerning problems over citizenship and the official language, Russians started grieving the Tartar Invasion of the 13th century, which subjected their forefathers to the tyranny of the Mongols. Historical trauma may be a widespread hindrance to peace. During negotiations, leaders and their representatives make vague references to it and even relive some of its events. The sentiments of embarrassment and shame surrounding an earlier injury might influence encounters in the present.
Helplessness, the fundamental sensation of trauma, inflames the impression of current danger and is generally resisted by reassertions of authority, dominance, and national identity. Diplomacy’s most difficult mission is to help people overcome their own existential worries and fears of extinction. Such apprehensions are embodied in Putin’s anxiety of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization spreading eastward, which he construes as a danger to Russia’s security.
The fundamental trust essential for good-faith discourse is often undermined by a communal memory of trauma. Often, a leader would decide to reclaim what was lost when gripped by terrible recollection. When seen through the lens of “justice,” vengeance is considered as a means of making amends for a grave injustice.
This sort of political endeavor to restore a nation’s loss is what Italians term “irredenta” or “unredeemed.” When it comes to reclaiming “lost” land and updating the old Soviet anthem’s lyrics, irredentist beliefs correspond with Putin’s own.
Such attempts to reclaim a nation’s narcissistic integrity may be decoded via psychologically informed diplomacy. Those working in the field open up their ears to the workings of an unconscious agenda and impart fresh understanding to those responsible for diplomatic communication. They employ empathy as the technique of observation, allowing one person to comprehend another peoples’ emotional experience from inside the other’s historical frame of reference.
The International Dialogue Initiative leads initiatives to improve leaders’ ability to reflect so that they may better listen to one another and to themselves, respectively. Facilitators shepherd difficult sentiments into knowledge so they may be talked about rather than enacted via battle and innocent murder. A victimized state’s anger may be contained when it is channeled via such labor as a stabilizing factor amongst members of “enemy” groupings.
John Alderdice, a psychiatrist and member of the House of Lords who served as the lead negotiator for the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, is one of IDI’s facilitators. The agreement ended most of Northern Ireland’s troubles.
New information about group dynamics gives insight on how shared suffering may impede discussions and sometimes foretell tragedy. Volkan outlined an uncommon sort of criminal that employs an unexpected weapon: the memory of a nation.
History is rich with leaders who wave a crimson cape summoning up a group’s sense of loss to ignite revenge and vengeance. Currently, formal diplomacy lacks the tools necessary to cope with this particular weapon of mass devastation.
Just because you grasp the psychological underpinnings of international relations doesn’t mean that you can ignore more tangible considerations like economic policy or military might. Yet it helps negotiators comprehend the impact of collective trauma and distinguish past hurt from current reality. It decreases the psychological hurdles that distort one’s sense of person one is dealing with.
Psychologically informed conversation works alongside conventional interest-based diplomacy to develop an atmosphere for listening to and reflecting on shared suffering. It’s easier for delegates to work together on actual issues when their unpleasant experiences are adequately recognized.
Envoys of fighting organizations are frequently considerably better at talking than listening, often hearing the opposing party on a surface level while preparing for their time at the microphone. Disagreements between countries or huge groups are sometimes a symptom of difficulty in grieving together as a community after a loss. Yet who will hear the sadness behind the fury?
Diplomacy requires attentive listening in order to aid in the healing of the past and the reduction of violent intergenerational cycles. Would that Putin and Zelensky understood this. Every ambassador should be trained in psychoanalytic listening as a means of perception.

Summary

Psychoanalytically informed diplomacy stretches beyond political utterances to an unconscious agenda. During negotiations, it’s easy to pick up tangled strands of an individual’s terrible past, as well as the trauma of a much larger historical period. Vamik Volkan worked diplomatically with Estonians and Russians in border towns of newly independent Estonia. The International Dialogue Initiative (IDI) aims to improve leaders’ ability to reflect so that they may better listen to one another and to themselves. Facilitators shepherd difficult sentiments into knowledge so they may be talked about rather than enacted via battle and innocent murder.
A victimized state’s anger may be contained when it is channeled via such labor as a stabilizing factor. Diplomatic representatives should be trained in psychoanalytic listening as a means of perception. It helps negotiators comprehend the impact of collective trauma and distinguish past hurt from reality. Disagreements between countries or groups are sometimes a symptom of difficulty grieving together as a community after a loss.

Help Us Improve This Article

Have you discovered an inaccuracy? We put out great effort to give accurate and scientifically trustworthy information to our readers. Please notify us if you discover any typographical or grammatical errors.
Make a comment. We acknowledge and appreciate your efforts.

Share with Us

If you have any scale or any material related to psychology kindly share it with us at psychologyroots@gmail.com. We help others on behalf of you.

Follow

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Adblock Detected

Please support us by disabling your AdBlocker extension from your browsers for our website.