Compromise
To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand. In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or desire. Extremism is often considered as antonym to compromise, which, depending on context, may be associated with concepts of balance and tolerance. In the negative connotation, compromise may be referred to as capitulation, referring to a "surrender" of objectives, principles, or material, in the process of negotiating an agreement. In human relationships "compromise" is frequently said to be an agreement that no party is happy with, this is because the parties involved often feel that they either gave away too much or that they received too little.[1]
Political Compromise
In international politics, the compromises most often discussed are usually regarded as nefarious deals with dictators, such as Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler. Margalit calls these “rotten compromises.”[2] In democratic politics, compromises are necessary if any progress is to be made. Politicians campaign standing on principle and demonizing their opponents, which is to be expected in a robust democracy. But then they have to be able to adjust their principles and work with their opponents if they are to govern at all. This tension is one of the great challenges of contemporary democracy and has become more difficult in the era of the permanent campaign, as Gutmann and Thompson show.[3] The problem of political compromise in general is an important subject in political ethics.
Studies in compromise
Defining and finding the best possible compromise is an important problem in fields like game theory and the voting system.
Research has indicated that suboptimal compromises are often the result of negotiators failing to realize when they have interests that are completely compatible with those of the other party and settle for suboptimal agreements. Mutually better outcomes can often be found by careful investigation of both parties' interests, especially if done early in negotiations. [4]
See also
- Three-Fifths Compromise (USA)
- Connecticut Compromise (USA)
- Missouri Compromise (USA)
- Compromise of 1850 (USA)
- Compromise of 1867 (Austria-Hungary)
- Argument to moderation
- Constitution
- Win-win game
References
- ^ Global Knowledge (2008). "Methods of Dealing with Conflict - Part II". PM Hut. Retrieved 2010-01-11.
- ^ Margalit, Avishai. On Compromises and Rotten Compromises (Princeton University Press, 2009). ISBN: 9780691133171
- ^ Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. The Spirit of Compromise (Princeton University Press, 2012). ISBN: 9780691153919
- ^ Thompson, Leigh (1990). "Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes (Issue 47)". Social perception in negotiation. Academic Press. pp. 98–123. Retrieved 2009-08-17.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
