Post - Lindsay R.M. Jones, LLC

I contend that interdependent power structural arrangements influence and shape socio-economic relationships in multicultural society through their distribution of power manifesting in a socio-economic spectrum ranging from privileged elitism to marginalization, in which distinct and cognizable populations within multicultural society observed to be in conflict over public policy relate to one another in a prescribed order and spatial power dynamic. This spatial power dynamic may be generally described as a hyper-segregated hierarchical power regime, characterized by socio-economic divisions defined by multicultural category constructs, manifesting along historical identities such as bloodlines, ethnicity, race, nationality, regionalism, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender, language, and class.

I proposed that reoccurring patterns of meta power structural arrangements may be observed at the local, national, and international levels of multicultural society. Thus, they are global in nature, reliably rendering themselves as a universal evaluative model for peacemakers and public policy mediators to analyze the spatial power dynamics at each level of multicultural society in which conflicts over public policy among distinct and cognizable populations comprising a given level of multicultural society might be observed.

Envision multicultural society at any level, local, national, or international, in which the level of society being examined is perceived as existing within a spherical dynamic shaped and influenced by power structural arrangements emitting from a primary power structural axis, in which the poles are capped by a financial power structural arrangement and a policing power structural arrangement. Further imagine that this primary structural axis is reinforced along the sphere's belt by secondary power structural arrangements, communicative, regulatory, legislative, and juridical, all of which are interdependent and reinforcing of the other to maintain a systemic governance apparatus over multicultural society.

The core of the "Global Meta Power Structural Dynamic Model" is what might be referred to as the "prestige structural arrangement", or more specifically the existence of a "hyper-segregated hierarchical power regime", which governs the levels of inclusion and participatory democracy among the socio-economically distinct and cognizable populations comprising the multicultural society; specifically, influencing their respective voice and agency capacities to access and mediate conflicts within each of the power structural arrangements that comprise the broader global meta power structural dynamic.

The model suggests that disparities among distinct and cognizable populations comprising multicultural society, with respect to inclusion and participatory democracy, correlate to the level of socio-economic tensions within the level of multicultural society being examined, and that this correlation can be measured on a critical mass trajectory by analyzing Human Development Index and other socioeconomic available data as proxies to represent and evaluate disparities in voice and agency capacities, as well as represent and evaluate the nexus between human development and unrest temperaments among distinct and cognizable populations comprising multicultural society. In this regard, the elasticity of the spherical dynamic of a given multicultural society can be assessed with respect to predicating its inevitable tipping point and resulting socio-economic destabilization. I contend that this critical mass trajectory analysis enables peacemakers and public policy mediators to more effectively devise and implement public consensus based conflict resolution strategies in the prevailing political context of the examined multicultural society toward the goal of resolving the underlying structural origins of conflict. Specifically, I contend that with this understanding, peacemakers and public policy mediators can more effectively transform collective consciousness through neutral advocacy to move populations in conflict beyond prescribed spatial dynamic conflict voices that perpetuate impasse, inhibit mediation, and undermine public consensus building.

Prescribed spatial dynamic conflict voices observed in multicultural societies governed by a hyper-segregated hierarchical power regime, might generally be characterized as falling into one of three levels of maturation: Protest Voice, Empowerment Voice, and Transformative Voice. The most primitive of the conflict voices is “Protest Voice”, in which the population exhibiting this voice may be observed as lacking the capacity to command the institutional forms (agency) and languages (voice) of the power structural arrangements in which the conflict arises; thus, limiting the population’s access to the power structural arrangements by which to meaningfully mediate on the reform of the underlying structural origins of conflict. A population engaged in Protest Voice is generally limited in its agency and voice capacities to identify and articulate sustainable resolution in pragmatic terms, which tends to push the opposing population in the conflict away from sustainable resolution. In some instances, the opposing population may exercise flexibility over policing and other power structural arrangements as socio-economic controls in responding to Protest Voice, by conceding to temporary distributive concessions intended to appease threats of a sustained, intense protest posture. When such concessions are made, they are often utilized as a means to preserving the existing power structural arrangements, which the opposing population is likely to perceive as ultimately benefitting its power position in the hyper-segregated hierarchical power regime. This faux resolution outcome tends to be cyclical in managing impasse, marked by patterns of distributive concessions and retrenchment. In sum, it does not reconstruct the power structural arrangements that give rise to the underlying conflict as a systemic phenomenon.

“Empowerment Voice”, is exhibited in a population possessing, at various degrees of agency and voice capacities depending on the population’s power position within the spatial power dynamic, an ability to command the institutional form (agency) and language (voice) of the power structural arrangements in which the conflict arises, sufficient to effect long term distributive concessions, sometimes permanent. However, like Protest Voice, populations engaged in Empowerment Voice are unlikely to achieve reconstruction of the power structural arrangements, instead they are more likely to engage in an effort to preserve the existing power structural arrangement to maintain perceived socio-economic advantage, or to be unable to identify how the power structural arrangements might be reconstructed in a way that does not perpetuate the underlying source of conflict; namely the imbalances of inclusion and equity resulting from the hyper-segregated hierarchical power regime. Their disposition in this regard is based on their relative power position within the existing spatial power dynamic. With respect to reconciling the respective socio-economic interests of the populations in conflict, mutual Empowerment Voice confrontations perpetuate a competitive-distributive paradigm as opposed to facilitating a cooperative-deliberative paradigm, as such, they are not likely to produce a sustainable conflict resolution outcome.

Transformative Voice, when employed by peacemakers and public policy mediators through the exercise of Neutral Advocacy (an enlightened strategic engagement of Transformation Mediation), seeks to transform the collective consciousness among distinct and cognizable populations in conflict to bring about an interest convergence realization of their complex interdependence and inextricably shared goal of sustainable multicultural society; which when realized, establishes capacity within the populations to embrace Transformative Voice as their own conflict voice. It is through their maturation to Transformative Voice that distinct and cognizable populations in conflict may cultivate a revitalized spatial capacity for inclusion and equity in the existing power structural arrangements. This maturation in conflict voice enables populations in conflict to mutually reach compassion, contrition, and forgiveness, by which capacity populations are enabled to pursue reconciliation and ultimately the consensus goal of transforming the existing hyper-segregated hierarchical power regime to achieve revitalized and sustainable fully democratized power structural arrangements embodying institutionalized inclusive and equitable mediation processes.

The achievement of the reconstruction of the existing hyper-segregated hierarchical power regime, and therein the transformation of the existing power structural arrangements, ensures that future conflicts over public policy among distinct and cognizable populations within multicultural society, do not reach impasse or rise to a critical mass level that threatens the socio-economic stability of the broader multicultural society in which the conflicts arise. However, in order for reconstruction of the existing hyper-segregated hierarchical regime to realized the potential for promoting sustainable peace, the reconstruction most be accompanying by a mass consciousness transformative shift away from a distributive-competitive value-based paradigm to a deliberative-cooperative value-based paradigm.

The attempt to conceptualize the several national identity constructs of Europe's nation states under the European Union, based on the realization of complex interdependence and an inextricable shared destiny, provides a limited example for the theoretical basis for how mass consciousness shifting might be structurally undertaken to promote sustainable multicultural society. Similarly, at least in theory, the conceptualization of the American Experiment as pursuing an inclusive and equitable participatory democracy comprised of a diverse array of humanity, suggests the possibility for how a complex multicultural society through a more committed and enlightened conflict resolution strategy might achieve greater transformation away from a competitive-distributive paradigm to a cooperative-deliberative paradigm. However, both of these examples reveal continued resistance to embracing the levels of inclusion and equity among their evolving diverse populations, which contradicts the realization of mass consciousness transformation required for sustainable multicultural society.