An open system would be comfortable with the dis-equilibrium described above be-
the “principle of equifinality” inherent in an open system with his own description of a Platonic
dialogue in A Grammar of Motives:
A Platonic dialogue is not formed simply by breaking an idea into its component parts
and taking them up in one-two-three order . . . [it] is rather a process of transformation
whereby the position at the end transcends the position at the start, so that the position
at the start can eventually be seen in terms of the new motivation encountered en
route. (442)
Identical to Fisher’s “principle of nonsummativity” which describes the whole of interdepend-
ent parts as something “other than the simple sum of the individual parts” (Stewart et al 28),
Burke’s requirements for a Platonic dialogue may only be appropriate in an open system where
the interconnected motives are already untangled. In the context of intractable conflict, the
nodes of the system may be connected by relationships but those relationships are based on
the various motives the parties bring to bear. As convoluted as they are likely to be, the motives
should be made explicit (through a Burkean dramatistic methodology I argue) if the belligerents
sincerely hope to reduce the perceived intractability of their conflict.
An approach informed by Burke’s comic framework follows exhaustive work done by
peace and conflict scholars who have gone so far as to detail the myriad factors that make the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict a uniquely intractable one (Telhami and Cohen). From the applied
systems thinking community, David Stroh describes successful intervention in the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict as a process of “breaking a link between variables or changing variables” (6).
Although “breaking” connotes an allopathic approach to the problem that I do not support, the
way under-emphasized by the peace and conflict studies community. Stroh’s systemic outline
concludes with a recommendation to test “underlying mental models that drive so much of people’s behavior (6). Unfortunately, Stroh does not provide a pragmatic methodology for re-
vealing the ‘underlying mental models’ let alone test them.
Although it may be obvious that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an open system, fol-
lowing Stroh, I advocate constructing the intractable conditions of the environment as explicitly
open so as to articulate the difference between comic and tragic frames. Doing so adheres to
Fisher’s “principle of equifinality” and enables a homeopathic strategy which can learn from its
environment and incorporate options as they are revealed. Finally, one should note how trau-
matic changes in the environment effect open systems differently than closed ones. Where a
closed system would deal with a problem allopathically (via antidote or negentropy), an open
system would incorporate the changes as natural conditions and seek to capitalize on the
strengths and weaknesses uncovered by the change. This is all the more important in a region
like the Middle East where the ongoing Arab Uprising is triggering countless reverberations in
an open system that demands an almost daily review of the rhetorical context.
In sum: According to Carlson, Gandhi’s strategy for non-violent resistance proceeded ac-
cording to a ritual characterized by a recognition of both social and individual power; attempts
at identification with the social order; emphasis upon epiphany as a ritual goal; and combina-
tion of a pragmatic view of human motives with a transcendent view of human unity to create a
comic balance (447). My study does not propose a similar ritual (solution) to reconcile Israelis
and Palestinians. In fact, this problem set is not one of resistance and resisted, it transcends
tions instead of the Agents. It demands attention on the threats to identity for both sides and
attracts focus to the rhetorical nature of the conflict’s intractable(ness), not the conflict’s ulti- mate resolution.
Although the first priority may be to weaken the paralyzing influence of Conflict Syn-
drome on the dominant paradigm, the first step in the process I am proposing is to introduce an
alternative lens to unpack our understanding of the MEPP informed by Burke’s comic frame.
Through dramatism (of which the comic frame is but one part), the unique characteristics and
conditions which constitute an intractable conflict further undermined by Conflict Syndrome
can be reframed and perhaps transformed such that the conditions function as part of a tracta-
ble conflict. To be clear, Dramatism will not end the MEPP, it may only serve to mitigate the
influence of Conflict Syndrome and help move the perception of the conflict from an intractable
to tractable category of conflict. Achieving such a shift then leaves the task of reconciliation,
conflict resolution, or conflict management to the practioners and policy makers in the field.
Before I end this discussion of the systemic distinctions between comic and tragic
frames, I will clarify the correlation I am drawing among Burke’s comic frame, homeopathic so-
lutions, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an open system. First off, the three are not mu-
tually exclusive concepts. As discussed earlier, their opposite concepts must be accommodated
for because they may actually function better in oscillation with each other, e.g. following a
homeopathic approach until the potential emerges for an allopathic solution. These concepts
are also normative in that they shape one’s perspective on conflict which in turn shapes the ac-
tions one might consider. While best suited for what Burke calls, a “man in society” (Attitudes
ing, use of the comic frame must consider both the open nature of social systems and the ho-
meopathic, i.e. incremental accommodation of tension, so the frame does not slip from comic to tragic. As I have shown, accommodating for the systemic nature of intractable conflict is piv-
otal if the comic frame is to reveal ways to transform it. Revisiting the rhetorical artifacts of the
MEPP through this refined framework may reveal more questions than answers and will likely
frustrate peace-process community justifiably weary of admiring the problem.