Psychological and Political Strategies for Peace Negotiation

Galluccio studied for a long time in Italy and has a degree in both political sciences and psychological sciences and techniques for the persons and the community. He has given many speeches, presented numerous papers and symposia at international conferences and congresses on the subject of International Relations, with a particular interest in the application of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy principles to the field of political sciences. As lecturer on behalf of the Directorate-General Communication of the European Commission he gives conferences to many International Universities, enterprises, and national administrations from different Countries. Dr. Galluccio has worked within the European institutional framework as political analyst and adviser. He was political coordinator at the Directorate-General of the European Commission for Development and Relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific States. Previously he was Spokesman to the President of COPA and coordinator of the Crisis Management Unit at the COPA-COGECA. Among Dr. Galluccio's research interests are those on applied cognitive psychology and psychotherapy; interpersonal negotiations; specific training for negotiators and politicians; preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution; Common Foreign and Security Policy for the European Union; the European Union internal negotiation processes and institutional external communication. He is coauthor of Psychological processes in international negotiations: theoretical and practical perspectives (with F. Aquilar, New York, 2008).

to the closing chapter by Francesco Aquilar (use of social cognitive therapy from individuals to nations), the reader is treated to a range of conceptual models, empirical research, intervention strategies, and informed opinions on the changes needed to improve peace negotiations.Imagine a volume on peace negotiation that gives rich discussion on so many issues: emotion, communication, and compassion (e.g., Paul Gilbert, Carolyn Saarni); going beyond reliance on conventional appeals to logic (e.g., Robert Leahy); tacit knowledge (Thomas Dowd and Angela Roberts Miller); escalation images (e.g., Guy Faure); pre-encounter communication (e.g., Dean Pruitt); limits of science and sustainability (e.g., Cornelia Nauen); constraints and limitations from constituents (e.g., Druckman, Çuhadar, Beriker, and Celik); and the need for special training of peace negotiators (e.g., Olivera Zikic). The chapter by Meichenbaum summarizes a score of thinking errors that often occur in negotiation (e.g., stereotypes, seeking consistency, attribution errors); the chapter by Karam on Lebanon offers one of the best analyses of an actual peace negotiation that I have read; and the chapters by Galluccio and by Kremenyuk offer inspiring visions for the future for peace negotiation and world peace.I do, however, have a few suggestions. As a cultural psychologist I would suggest more explicit attention be given to ethnocultural considerations. I say "explicit" because many of the chapters are sensitive to the ethnocultural differences of the negotiating parties, and they address these differences via discussions of emotion, compassion, histories, thinking styles, and so forth. However, I am speaking here about the possibility of focusing specifically on the topic of ethnopolitical considerations via discussions of alternative cultural constructions of reality (e.g., Avruch & Vejarano, 2002; Marsella, 2005, 2007).Ethnocultural differences have always been a bane in conflict negotiation. For example, in discussing the example of truth and reconciliation processes, Avruch and Vejarano (2001, 2002), wrote:

Most of the truth and truth and reconciliation commissions covered in the literature have worked (when they do) in Christian countries, and have recourse to broadly (if not perfectly) shared Christian values. But any attention to culture should alert us to the recognition that such notions as justice, truth, forgiveness, reconciliation, and accountability-to name a few-are always socially constructed and culturally constituted. Research in conflict resolution has already established different modalities for Islamic and "Western" cultures around such key ideas as justice, peace, and reconciliation-and contrition and forgiveness-and there is no reason to think that cultural differences stop there. (Avruch & Vejarano, 2002, p. 43)In my work on ethnocultural considerations, I have noted that there are profound differences across ethnocultural groups in the perception, processing, and storage of information about the world across verbal, imagistic, emotional, proprioceptive, visceral, and total body modalities. What is important here is that, too often, Western approaches to reality construction emphasize the verbal/rational linear thinking approach.Consider our many and varied psychotherapies: They depend heavily upon verbalization-using words to communicate complex ideas, feelings, and memories. However, many groups do not code reality in the verbal mode. As a result, the use of verbal channels to change behavior may be limited.I can recall a failed therapy occasion with a Filipino plantation worker in Hawaii who thanked me for my efforts after a number of counseling sessions. He said, "Thank you, doctor, you are a good person, but I still don't feel good." He did not feel good because I failed to access the many channels of his codification of experience and the rich and detailed material that was there and that needed to be addressed via other methods beyond talking.He was, as all of us are, a whole person-body, mind, and spirit. I had to learn from this case that I had failed to tap all the modes (i.e., image, emotion, proprioceptive, visceral) in which his experience had been encoded and was being experienced as part of his adjustment. The power of accessing all modes of experience among different ethnocultural groups cannot be ignored or dismissed in something as critical as peace negotiations.I wish to commend the editors and authors of Psychological and Political Strategies for Peace Negotiation: A Cognitive Approach for an exceptional effort that does much to advance the area of peace negotiation and conflict resolution. I recommend this volume heartily as a definite advance in our knowledge and a definite contribution to peace and justice: not to be missed."- Anthony J. Marsella, PsycCRITIQUES, August 24, 2011, Vol. 56, No. 34, Article 8

intelligences) to the closing chapter by Francesco Aquilar (use of social cognitive therapy from individuals to nations), the reader is treated to a range of conceptual models, empirical research, intervention strategies, and informed opinions on the changes needed to improve peace negotiations.
Imagine a volume on peace negotiation that gives rich discussion on so many issues: emotion, communication, and compassion (e.g., Paul Gilbert, Carolyn Saarni); going beyond reliance on conventional appeals to logic (e.g., Robert Leahy); tacit knowledge (Thomas Dowd and Angela Roberts Miller); escalation images (e.g., Guy Faure); pre-encounter communication (e.g., Dean Pruitt); limits of science and sustainability (e.g., Cornelia Nauen); constraints and limitations from constituents (e.g., Druckman, Çuhadar, Beriker, and Celik); and the need for special training of peace negotiators (e.g., Olivera Zikic). The chapter by Meichenbaum summarizes a score of thinking errors that often occur in negotiation (e.g., stereotypes, seeking consistency, attribution errors); the chapter by Karam on Lebanon offers one of the best analyses of an actual peace negotiation that I have read; and the chapters by Galluccio and by Kremenyuk offer inspiring visions for the future for peace negotiation and world peace.
I do, however, have a few suggestions. As a cultural psychologist I would suggest more explicit attention be given to ethnocultural considerations. I say "explicit" because many of the chapters are sensitive to the ethnocultural differences of the negotiating parties, and they address these differences via discussions of emotion, compassion, histories, thinking styles, and so forth. However, I am speaking here about the possibility of focusing specifically on the topic of ethnopolitical considerations via discussions of alternative cultural constructions of reality (e.g., Avruch & Vejarano, 2002; Marsella, 2005, 2007).
Ethnocultural differences have always been a bane in conflict negotiation. For example, in discussing the example of truth and reconciliation processes, Avruch and Vejarano (2001, 2002), wrote:

Most of the truth and truth and reconciliation commissions covered in the literature have worked (when they do) in Christian countries, and have recourse to broadly (if not perfectly) shared Christian values. But any attention to culture should alert us to the recognition that such notions as justice, truth, forgiveness, reconciliation, and accountability-to name a few-are always socially constructed and culturally constituted. Research in conflict resolution has already established different modalities for Islamic and "Western" cultures around such key ideas as justice, peace, and reconciliation-and contrition and forgiveness-and there is no reason to think that cultural differences stop there. (Avruch & Vejarano, 2002, p. 43)
In my work on ethnocultural considerations, I have noted that there are profound differences across ethnocultural groups in the perception, processing, and storage of information about the world across verbal, imagistic, emotional, proprioceptive, visceral, and total body modalities. What is important here is that, too often, Western approaches to reality construction emphasize the verbal/rational linear thinking approach.
Consider our many and varied psychotherapies: They depend heavily upon verbalization-using words to communicate complex ideas, feelings, and memories. However, many groups do not code reality in the verbal mode. As a result, the use of verbal channels to change behavior may be limited.
I can recall a failed therapy occasion with a Filipino plantation worker in Hawaii who thanked me for my efforts after a number of counseling sessions. He said, "Thank you, doctor, you are a good person, but I still don't feel good." He did not feel good because I failed to access the many channels of his codification of experience and the rich and detailed material that was there and that needed to be addressed via other methods beyond talking.
He was, as all of us are, a whole person-body, mind, and spirit. I had to learn from this case that I had failed to tap all the modes (i.e., image, emotion, proprioceptive, visceral) in which his experience had been encoded and was being experienced as part of his adjustment. The power of accessing all modes of experience among different ethnocultural groups cannot be ignored or dismissed in something as critical as peace negotiations.
I wish to commend the editors and authors of Psychological and Political Strategies for Peace Negotiation: A Cognitive Approach for an exceptional effort that does much to advance the area of peace negotiation and conflict resolution. I recommend this volume heartily as a definite advance in our knowledge and a definite contribution to peace and justice: not to be missed."
- Anthony J. Marsella, PsycCRITIQUES, August 24, 2011, Vol. 56, No. 34, Article 8