Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
I would think one way to simplify it would be to strip down some of the background intellectual framework.
I actually agree with Steve here--and I am an academic, and of the kind that attends the sort of conference in question.

Having read the paper over several times, I'm not at all convinced that Malinowski (in particular) and some of the broader theoretical contextualization (in general) adds more to the analysis in substantive insight than it takes away in distracting from the central points. I often found that I wished there was further discussion of the why/where/how tos of each of the 10 questions.

I think that we academics use theoretical jargon the way military folks use acronyms--it is partly to transmit complex ideas in a parsimonious way, and it is partly a tribal ritual intended to demarcate in- and out-groups

---

BTW Marc, I'm not convinced that conflict is always linked to the primary failure of social institutions. Assuming that the ability to organize and project violence for the purposes of maintaining security or enhancing communal power is also rooted in institutions, it might also signal the excessive "success" of some (over others).

Also, while I think you are right to assert the importance of justice in successful, stable conflict resolutions, I'm not sure I agree that "Finding a “story” that matches what all stakeholders can view as “just” is crucial to building a lasting peace" .. it may be enough that the parties view the outcome as "just enough" or "not too unjust" balanced against the costs of war (this is only a slightly tweak on your argument here--another advantage of jettisoning some of the theoretical contextualization or shifting it into footnotes is that it would allow you to pursue these issues more fully).