The conceptual environment means the embodiment of the political, social and economic system. At whatever social and economic level it may occur, the socio-political order that sustains human social life is closely related to this context, in which people should seek to come to terms with one another. If there is no agreement, and therefore no negotiation and dialogue, then we have a conflict. A large number of factors can incite conflict; for instance, the prejudices that are so hard to overcome, widespread injustice and inequality, unfair hegemony, the unpreventable violation of rights and laws, etc. There is a slogan frequently repeated by anti-globalists that goes "No justice, no peace!" So, a socio-political system is first of all expected to establish a firm justice system. This expectation doesn't change at the global level, just as it never changes at the national level. The measure of a good socio-political system is its performance with increasing the number of possibilities of negotiation and dialogue for different groups of people and in reducing the risk of potential conflicts to a minimum.
There are two possibilities that sustain our social existence; either we have obligatorily come to live together or we have been brought together around a common goal and purpose, and our nature has been codified in this way. The key point here is the ability to bring a satisfactorily clear explanation on how we can live together without killing one another.
The "framework" determines the boundaries of a human activity and also draws certain borders inside which one can move self-confidently. The corresponding term of framework in law is border/limit. The framework we are focusing on is made up of concepts, but unfortunately this structure built by the philosophical sources of modern culture doesn't provide us with a secure area.
There are two levels of the relationship we have with one another. The first is getting to know and the second is how we define each other. The former focuses on the relation our being together has with a higher level which has a certain purpose, while defining forces one to control "the other" at this level. In this regard, each definition is tantamount to an intervention.
With the arrival of modernism and all its elements, the wisdom-based religious system has been replaced with manmade culture. Culture, which means the socialization of secularism and the power of the state, fulfills a function of knowing, whereas the political power, which is the demagogical, opportunist and Machiavellist version of daily politics obsessed with success, fulfills a function of defining. At this point, I'm neither exalting culture on its own nor making any implications that political power has an absolutely evil nature.
If we are to put it in the briefest way possible, politics puts the relations of the political power in order. Its relationship with culture is closely related to what level of meaning it perceives in the political power, which it puts into order and then uses. Since the political power is the centralization of power, there are two possible versions of it: a shareable power, or a monopoly of power. The politics that knows calls for having negotiations and interactions at the foundation of social relations and sacrificing some personal desires. As a result of this, "social agreement" is born. In every single human situation where there is a written or oral social agreement, a conscience of social peace and political unity develops on its own. The politics that defines, on the other hand, feeds the polarization and conflict sources that perpetuate it and that allow it to exist because of its interventionist nature. So the first problem that stirs up a conflict stems from the difficulties that occur during the transition from the politics that knows to the politics that defines. The attempt to otherize -- or having advantages over the other -- which turns the legitimate political competition into a conflict, directly relates to this problem.
Benzer Haberler 
