Confrontation of Maidan and Not Maidan need to be withdrawn from squares to places where people could agree


Odessa, December 9, 2014

Oksana Bolotova, psychologist, trainer of NLP, Inna Tereschenko, the mediator, conflict management, spoke at a briefing on the escalation of conflict between the Maidan and Antimaidan.

Oksana Bolotova expressed psychoanalytic position, on the basis of which the representatives of the Maidan and Antimaidan gather in one place, at the same time, because they want to join. They are acutely expressing their opposing positions, but their true desires and aspirations do not show. Our society is split, but split artificially. Maidan, coming on Kulikovo Field to convince other side, deep down, want to negotiate with them. What we see – this is not a provocation, as such, but the desire of the parties to negotiate. Only they do not know how to do it. And it’s really easy. But there are situations where people generally cannot do this. They interfere with the hidden resentments, through which people cannot cross.

On the other hand the analogy of family quarrels, when the two parted spouse continue to meet and quarrel. This means that they cannot let go of each other subconsciously wanting reunification. Especially as the Maidan and Not Maidan have common cultural features, common archetypes.

Inna Tereschenko thinks that maybe, deep down, such a meeting of representatives of the different positions is seen by other people, but at the level of all social actors it is differently. Maidan now have more strength, more power, more features, although they do not always feel it. They are in the mainstream.

Recently in Odessa mediation group decided to look at the situation of the Maidan and Not Maidan a somewhat different point of view than just meeting for dialogue. December 14 is an attempt to build a theme dialogue. Just this day anniversary of the uprising of the Decembrists falls. Very much is to the current historical moments. There are countries that have adopted their own history in all its diversity, including the negative aspects.

Odessa was the southern Russian branch of the Decembrist movement. In Odessa, often encountered ideas of Slavophiles and Westernizers. Decembrism expressed desire of some officers to European values. On the other hand in the nineteenth century, we have co-existed well the values of Western and local. This is what will be the main topic of discussion, why different values co-exist, but sometimes encounter.

From the point of view of social processes, any attempt to deny the existence of conflict escalation = a factor of escalation. When forte says that it does not have a conflict with someone, it simply ignores the position of minorities. The only possibility to negotiate is not persuading the other, and start talking. We now have a chance to speak and hear. Understand and accept the diversity of opinions and values.

In Odessa will soon host an international conference on mediation with the participation of the OSCE mission. Will take part in it professionals and volunteers, who are directly involved in the dialogue. There will be the main theme of social conflict. The maximum objective is to bring the topic of dialogue at national level.

Oksana Bolotova talked about what should be a national Ukrainian idea. At the same time it should not be set up against someone, should not be ethnic. That is, in the USA, now produces UK. Friendship, needs, help each other – that should unite people. Different cultures should be able to feed off each other. As is happening now, for example, between the UK and India. First, there was poor communication. Now everything is different. Odessa citizen is identity higher than national. Our city has its own language, characters, music, literature. Such identity is necessary for Ukraine. And for this purpose it is necessary to establish a dialogue between East and West.

Inna Tereschenko noted that the street speaking otherwise, it is different from speaking in the hall where people come together for a specific purpose to express their position. In the street starts psychology of the crowd, so the main thing in this situation is – to stop and prevent. Now people from the squares should be withdrawn in a different space. They may be there guests, but otherwise – invitations, arrangements. In May, too, we had a similar situation – it was necessary to stop the confrontation, to say stop. Street confrontation should be limited.

Not Maidan – the same residents of the city, like all the others. We must seek common ground, for example, the association for the development of the city – one of the most constructive. The more that people from Not Maidan now, they are not the ex-Regions, which have been and often remain in power.

Uniting around a common enemy is matter unstable. An example of this is the union of the United States, the Soviet Union and Britain against Hitler. We must not go against someone, and go for something. The idea of where to go, can swim during the dialogue. The main thing is to say it out loud, to sound at a conscious level.

There is no dialogue at once, but only to a certain level of conflict. You should wait for when the time comes, and the people will agree to talk. Negotiations are going on when it is bad. If both sides think they can win, they find it difficult to negotiate.