Dialogue and Universalism

logoleft
logoright

logoright

 

NEXT ISSUES — CALL FOR PAPERS

ALL THE PROJECTS ARE OPEN: EVERYBODY IS KINDLY WELCOME

 

 

DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND THE 4th SPACE

 

Sections:

 

The 4th Space as a Virtual Aspect of Reality

Virtual Negotiations

The Paradigms of Digital Transformation

 

guest-editors:  Daniel Hardegger, ZHAW School of Management and Law, Switzerland

Peter Boltuc, Warsaw School of Economics SGH, Poland, and University of Illinois, Springfield, USA

 

Deadline:  June 20, 2022

 

Short description:

Whereas negotiations had previously taken place in person, at the latest in the final process, they now had to be conducted purely virtually, even at critical moments, due to the contact restrictions to contain the Corona pandemic. This challenge affected individuals as well as companies, public authorities, NGOs/NPOs and international organizations. In the context of this topic, we will discuss what the effects of such purely virtual negotiations mean for the individuals and organizations involved as well as the effect of upcoming technologies on the negotiation experience and structure.

Long description:

The contact restrictions to contain the Corona pandemic have accelerated many digitization processes already underway. Negotiations are a particular case in point. Whereas these had previously taken place in person, at the latest in the final process, they now had to be conducted purely virtually, even at critical moments. This challenge affected individuals as well as small, medium, and large companies, public authorities, NGOs/NPOs and international organizations. In the context of this topic, we will therefore discuss what the effects of such purely virtual negotiations mean for the individuals and organizations involved. On the one hand, it is about the current challenges of virtual negotiation management, structure, and organization, such as

  • the influence of purely digital communication on the overall negotiation experience,

  • the differences between private, political, and business-related as well as small and large virtual

    negotiations

  • the effect of virtual negotiations on existing conflict resolution and virtual mediation mechanisms,

  • the influence of purely virtual negotiation on the solution-oriented „community-spirit”,

  • the effect of cultural, sociological, religious as well as gender-related differences on virtual negotiations

  • the management of tacit vs codified knowledge and how different forms of proximity might influence negotiations

    On the other hand, this topic will also focus on upcoming challenges e.g.

  • what future technologies, such as augmented or virtual reality, will impact the structure of virtual negotiations and the „negotiation experience” of stakeholders,

  • what impact will future technologies, e.g. lifelong learning machines, advanced AI, HLAI and AGI, have on inequities negotiating partners in the areas of information access, structuring, processing and potentially machine-led strategic virtual negotiations,

  • what external effects, such as „flight shame” or the rise of the „home office” during the Corona pandemic, has and will further affect the role of virtual negotiations,

  • how purely virtual negotiations will affect the management and decision-making structure of different types and scale of organisations,

  • how predominance of virtual negotiations will impact the issues of diversity in organisations, including race and gender,

  • how the rise of virtual negotiations can be included into current and upcoming virtual and hybrid educational programs and training exercises.

    Being an inter- and transdisciplinary topic due to the variety of research questions, contributions from various fields of expertise (e.g. sociology, information science, law, psychology, applied philosophy, communication science, business and institutional management, international relations) are being welcomed as part of this topic.

 

Keywords: Virtual negotiations, digital turn, community building, post-COVID management, smart contracts, business innovation, UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG):

Goal 4: Quality education, Goal 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions

(SIG 14 — Conference General Track, Leading the Digital Transformation for the EURAM 22nd Conference)

For a more information contact:

Daniel Hardegger, ZHAW School of Management and Law – hadg@zhaw.ch

AUTHORS GUIDELINES

https://conferences.euram.academy/2022conference/authors-guidelines-for-full-papers/

 

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————– 

 

NEW FACES OF DEMOCRACY

IN SEARCHING OF THE GLOBAL HEALTH OF DEMOCRACY

Guest-editor: dr. Gabriela Tănăsescu, Senior Researcher

Ion I. C. Brătianu Bucharest Institute of Political Sciences and International Relations

of the Romanian Academy 

Deadline: September 30, 2022

 

The democracy, “so universally sanctified” and unanimously consented, especially in its remarkable global expansion of the last 75 years, is evaluated as being currently at an unprecedented crossroads or in the middle of a “perfect storm of threats.” Its last decade growing political trends towards “democratic erosion” (decline in democratic quality, even in established democracies), towards more severe “democratic backsliding” and forms of authoritarianism (according to empirical evidence of IDEA’s 2021) have been “accelerated and magnified” by COVID-19 pandemic “exceptional” restrictive measures, unprecedented in peacetime. The imposition of states of emergency (of danger, alarm or epidemic threat), with the risk of executive abuse of power in terms of highly centralized, non-deliberative and non-transparent decision-making, of restricted role (of oversight and control) of parliaments and the judiciary, but also of civil society and the media, has involved an excessive and disproportionate governmental and administrative overreach and a limitation of citizens’ rights, civil liberties and fundamental freedoms considered unparalleled since World War II. Under the conditions of a strong social polarization, fostered by social media and a widespread media disinformation, and of “grotesque levels of economic inequality,” democracies have lost the citizens’ trust in their institutional ability to respond to social demands and solve problems, to stop mismanagement of COVID-19 funding and corruption in public spending (IDEA’s 2021 GSoD). This current plight of democracy—weakened, vulnerable, with low immunity in relation to authoritarianism—can be considered, under the conditions of a “simultaneous emergence of credible alternative models of governance,” as a crisis of the effectiveness of democracy with long-term effects.

Under the announced topic, we propose, beyond the “health check” of current democracy, (1) the examination of the sphere of possibilities for democracy restoring and healing in the new coordinates of what has been called “the grand acceleration” of our age, with reference to the wide mutations which redefines “the grounds for public authority,” identifies “the pathologies of capitalism and the unsustainable social contract underpinning its twenty-first-century variant” (Kalypso Nicolaidis), in terms of:

  • science involvement in the democratic formation of policy,
  • globalization of politics, development of transnational political spaces and organizations, reconsideration “of the fundamentals of the social contract” within nations (Miguel Poiares Maduro and Paul W. Kahn),
  • pro-corporate measures and policies in conditions of crisis, the pattern sometimes called “extraordinary politics” which involves the suspense of some or all democratic norms and the persuasion of the population as respects the need to give up social protection and to sustain the financial private sector in order to avoid “economic apocalypse” of society (Naomi Klein),
  • new “epistemological,” non-institutional, space of politics—social media—the “emotional” space in which populist and demagogic leaders “conduct the nation’s business on Twitter,”
  • a different metrics of sociability and relationality,
  • “informational war” and “strategic communication,” sophisticated methods and techniques of manipulation/public communication, spread of fake news,
  • decline of culture and of political culture, triumph of technology and population surveillance, and so on;

(2) the exploration of the conditions of possibility and relevance in post-pandemic times of a new faces of democracy:

      

  • participatory democracy and restorative activism; referendum and plebiscite  democracy,
  • organic democracy (Alain de Benoist),
  • redemptive and pragmatic faces of democracy (Margaret Canovan); populism as a “shadow” of democracy,
  • citizen-centric democracy (democracy in “a more horizontal understanding,” Kalypso Nicolaidis), and so on,

in order to protect the human dignity by popular control over public decision-making and decision-makers. 

 

An abstract (max. 250 words) of the submission which outlines its theses and argument is expected till May 5, 2022 (notice of acceptance within one month);

A full previously unpublished paper edited according to the authors guidelines:  https://dialogueanduniversalism.eu/index.php/author-guidelines/ should be submitted till September 30, 2022 (notice of acceptance within six weeks).

 

Your contributions are warmly welcome!

 Please send submissions to dr. Gabriela Tănăsescu: gabriela.tanasescu@ispri.ro

 

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————– 

 

DO WE NEED A NEW ENLIGHTENMENT AGE FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY?

Deadline:  February 10, 2022

Guest-Editor: Professor Robert Elliott Allinson, Chair, International Society for Universal Dialogue

  The Age of the Enlightenment, the period ranging from the mid-17th century to the late 18th century, was regarded as a quintessinal epoch of intellectual development and a proliferation of  the intellectual production in arts, letters, politics and sciences. It established a set of values regarded as a precursor to our current intellectual era. This special issue of the journal, Dialogue and Universalism will address and reexamine the core values of the  enlightenment, summarized by Steven Pinker in his book, Enlightenment Now as reason, science, humanism and progress. The enlightenment was based on the view that critical thinking, rational analysis, and the power of human, logical thinking could be applied to addressing issues in political, social, educational, scientific and religious arenas to better society as a whole. We live in an era of increasing suspicion of reason and science. In contrast, in the Enlightenment period, philosophers, scientists, lawyers, artists and writers of the period looked to the power of human reasoning to limit tyranny, superstition, ignorance and the asymmetry of power in order that individual freedom could produce more happiness and fulfillment for human beings. UNESCO now has a World Logic Day to emphasize some of these very issues. Topics to be considered (but not limited to) include the following:       1. Particular philosophers, writers of the Enlightenment: Which values of a particular philosopher can be regarded as significant in the endurance of the values of the Enlightenment? There are well over one hundred thinkers whose writings could be considered within the Enlightenment period. Examples of some who could be considered are as follows: Spinoza, Hume, Rousseau, Beccaria, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, Jefferson, Adam Smith, Condorcet, Kant, Mendelssohn, Goethe, Schiller, Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Astell, Staszic, Krasicki, Radischev, and Kollataj.         2. Although considered a “Western” phenomenon, are there similar Enlightenment periods that can be regarded as preceding the 17th-18th century one?  For example, should we include: Ancient China during the Spring-Autumn and Warring periods; the Islamic Golden Age; the Mughal period in India; the Tang Song period of China? How were these similar and different from the Western Enlightenment?         3. Do Enlightenment values still matter in the 21st century? How? Why? Which ones? Is Pinker’s list an accurate summary of Enlightenment values? Are revisions or refinements of these values required?  If so, how can philosophers and intellectuals develop ways to reenergize these values, foster dialogue between science and superstition, between oppression of citizens and development of human potential; how can philosophy play a more dynamic role in the dialogue? What would constitute a dialogue between civilizations of the East, the West and Africa? How would such a dialogue contribute to the construction of global values for our current era? What are the possibilities of a universal set of values for our times?   Guidelines for Submission:

  1. A short c.v., an abstract, max 250 words outlining your argument; B., the abstract should be an original analysis and argument (not a summary or description), due October 15, 2021 (notice of acceptance within one month)
  2. Full previously unpublished paper (max 8,000 words) with five key words, intertextual headings and full footnotes, due February 10, 2022. (notice of acceptance within six weeks)
  3. Referee reports will not be included.
  4. It is to be noted that Dialogue and Universalismis essentially a philosophical journal. Thus,  all submitted papers should include some philosophical themes and analyses. With this qualification, the journal accepts interdisciplinary works.

Your contributions are warmly welcomed. Please send submissions and any inquiries to: Professor Robert Elliott Allinson:  rallinson@soka.edu 

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

 

 

 

           

 

   




created by mastalerz.it