• Hello everyone! I experience certain dificulty to understand the limit between party and actor. what does it mean councious? is it possible for someone having a threelemma and not being conscious about having it? […]

    • Hello Dear Aura, are you still having that difficulty? Because I am. What was you solution to this issue? I would guess that an actor is not yet a conflict party but just acting out according to his or her goals. A party however has been defined through interacting with some other actor whereby the incompatibility has become clear. What do you say? Actor doesn’t need incompatibility. Party is Actor in the situation of incompatible goals.

      • Hello dear Kimm, good to know that someone else is sharing the same concerns for thorough understanding of the concepts. my dialectical dipping started with the given attribute for party=interest holder / actor=goal holder, where interest becomes goal once the holder becomes conscious and organized. As I understand it now, the difference is given by the both-and formula, meaning that being conscious about his(her) inner clash (trilemma in my example), is not enough for party to become an actor, some more active involvement is required, as a step forward to convert the interest(s) in goal(s). this would happen when party once conscious about having three interests clashing, gets actively engaged (organized) to fulfill them, and this way becomes an actor. I hope this reflection is appropriate and look forward for your comments. Best to you, aura

Share this:     


© 2020 Galtung-Institut  •  Privacy Policy / Datenschutzerklärung  •  Imprint / Impressum