Determining Regulatory-Rights Contexts
A spectrum of contexts have been arranged for you from the most politically destructive to the most inclusive.
Are modes of opposition grounded on exclusion of one group or another within the relevant polity.
Example: A government implementing discriminatory policies that intentionally marginalize a specific ethnic or religious group, limiting their participation in societal affairs.
Are modes of opposition in which a given minority has remained, sometimes over centuries, and never been fully attuned but does not seek to integrate into the polity by violent means.
Example: A minority community peacefully coexisting within a society but maintaining distinct cultural practices and not fully integrating into the mainstream.
Are modes of attunement in which different groups both have legitimate and potential dominant claims and exist side by side. Uneasy contexts may unravel or continue peacefully.
Example: Communities with historical tensions living together, where unresolved disputes and competing claims may lead to either peaceful coexistence or escalating tensions.
Are modes of opposition which have led to greater integration, policy change and social justice.
Example: Successful social movements advocating for civil rights, gender equality, or environmental justice that bring about policy changes and societal integration, fostering a more equitable and just society.
Determine the Regulatory-Rights Contexts: Checklist
It is important to identify contexts of any particular rights claims and regulatory response so as to move away from abstract claims of demands for rights. The Contexts checklist helps you to think in terms of concrete situations within which those claims and responses are being made. In order to frame the context – Below you will see a series of questions in relation to the rights claim.
Rights
What rights are being invoked to defend a person or action?
What are the trajectories of rights for that government, party, company, region?
Levels of Governance
What level of governance is assumed to ensure, or is being asked to ensure these rights (national, EU, human rights, UN, etc.)?
What bodies of governance would actually, or realistically, be able to ensure these rights?
Social Fabric
How fragmented is the social fabric within the given context? Assess the degree of social division or unity to understand the potential impact on regulatory-rights pathways.
How are power dynamics distributed among different groups within the society? Investigate the power structures to identify potential challenges or opportunities for regulatory-rights pathways.
How is the opposition perceived by the general public? Examine public sentiments to understand the broader societal attitudes toward the modes of opposition.
To what extent do cultural factors contribute to the modes of opposition? Consider cultural influences that may impact regulatory responses and rights protection.
Are there significant economic disparities among opposing groups? Explore economic factors as they relate to the context, as these can influence attitudes and behaviors.
Historical Trajectories
What historical trajectories have shaped the existing modes of opposition?
Communication
What communication channels are prevalent among opposing groups? Analyze the modes of communication to gauge the openness or hostility that might affect regulatory responses.
Legal Framework
How well-established is the legal framework in addressing opposition and promoting rights? Evaluate the existing legal structures to determine their effectiveness in ensuring attunement.
International Relations
How do international relations affect the regulatory-rights pathways? Investigate external factors that may shape or constrain the regulatory environment within the given context.
Technology
What role does technology play in the modes of opposition? Examine technological influences on communication organization and information dissemination.
Modes of Belonging in Regulatory-Rights Pathways
The following list of questions help determine modes of belonging within a given regulatory-rights context. These questions aim to delve deeper into the regulatory-rights belonging of the rights claim public in public spaces, addressing issues of representation, integration, safety, and the overall dynamics shaping their experiences.
The toolkit identifies four major types of belonging on a spectrum from the most destructive and potentially disintegrative to the most integrative.
Perdures among groups that coexist in opposition and may decompose at any moment. Groups resent the presence of another even as their modes of attunement may be aligned at a given moment.
Generally applies to minority groups that continue in a position of marginality over long periods and for whom attunement is always a relative achievement.
Allows groups that have found a mode of attunement to coexist but with a suspicion and fear among each group or individual that their position may be supplanted or challenged.
Is achieved when oppositional groups have overcome their opposition to achieve greater inclusivity and social justice. Opposition remains, but the violent clash of interests has been overcome with policy and institutional outcomes of expanded belonging.
Checklist of Questions to Determine the Regulatory-Rights Belonging
Representation
How represented is the given Rights-claim public (RCP) making the rights claim or protected by a given regulation RCP in public space and discourse?
Conflict
How conflictual is the RCP’s presence within the general public, writ large?
Integration
How integrated and safe does the RCP feel?
Participation
To what extent is the RCP involved in decision-making processes that affect public space regulations?
What initiatives exist to facilitate the active engagement of the RCP community in shaping public space policies?
Equity
How equitable is the distribution of resources and amenities in public spaces for the given RCP?
Legal Safeguards
What legal safeguards are in place to protect the rights of the RCP in public spaces?
Media
How is the RCP portrayed in media concerning public space issues, and does this representation influence public opinion?
Discrimination
To what extent does the RCP perceive discrimination in public spaces, and how does this impact their sense of belonging?
Public Space
How does the discourse around the RCP in public spaces contribute to or challenge existing power dynamics?
Interactive Questions for Outcomes in Regulatory- Rights Pathways
Here we provide a series of questions that help identify possible, undesired, and desired outcomes in regulatory-rights pathways. Clearly all regulatory responses will not lead to possible attunement, that is, decrease the evolution of extreme political narratives. Depending on the context and the mode of belonging, a given regulatory response may promote greater attunement or it may in fact increase the potential for extremism. By determining the outcome, based on the context and belonging of a given rights claim, it is possible to evaluate the possibilities for greater or reduced attunement.
These dimensions of regulatory rights pathways may lead to four outcomes:
When one group refuses the continued presence of another within a regulatory-rights pathway.
Allows for groups to continue as they have, even amidst a relative failure of full attunement.
Allows for a relative achievement of attunement. Though it remains unsettled, it emerges when institutional, legal and policy frameworks have been found to support short and medium-term attunement.
Comes when the essential drivers of opposition have been grasped as sources of injustice and are identified by extensive legal, policy and institutional frameworks as detrimental to the community.
Rejection scenario
Question
In a regulatory-rights pathway, if one group adamantly opposes the continued presence of another, what potential consequences might arise for the overall dynamics of dialogue and cooperation?
Options
1. Escalation of tensions leading to conflict
2. Establishment of alternative pathways for coexistence
3. Collaborative efforts to address underlying issues
Modus vivendi inquiry
Question
When groups choose a modus vivendi within a regulatory-rights framework despite a partial attunement failure, what factors contribute to their ability to sustain this coexistence?
Options
1. Shared cultural practices fostering understanding
2. Regular dialogues and conflict resolution mechanisms
3. Dependence on external interventions for stability
Dialogue dynamics
Question
How can institutional, legal, and policy frameworks play a crucial role in fostering dialogue within a regulatory-rights pathway, particularly in the short and medium term?
Options
1. Establishing clear communication channels
2. Implementing inclusive decision-making processes
3. Encouraging public engagement through media
Transformative drivers identification
Question
In the context of regulatory-rights pathways, what steps can be taken to identify essential drivers of opposition as sources of injustice, leading to transformative outcomes?
Options
1. Conducting comprehensive socio-economic analyses
2. Engaging communities in participatory research
3. Collaborating with experts across diverse disciplines
4. Implementing targeted policy interventions
5. Establishing community-driven regulatory bodies
6. Facilitating continuous community feedback mechanisms
Forming Regulatory-Rights Prisms
In this final step, the contexts, modes of belonging and outcomes are brought together to form a prism through which rights claims and regulatory responses may be understood. The goal is to create a comprehensive framework for considering the interplay between regulations, rights, and societal dynamics.
The prism may be used as a prognostic tool: when confronted with a given rights claim or RCP, after having determined the context and the mode of belonging that defines the rights claims, it is possible to consider the variety of potential outcomes.
The prism may also be used as a diagnostic tool after a regulatory-rights response has been deployed. In such a case, it is possible to examine a given regulatory-rights outcome and use the prism to understand how a desired or undesired result was achieved. To be clear, contexts, modes of belonging and outcomes may align in any possible configuration.
Context
modes of opposition grounded on exclusion of one group or another within the relevant polity
modes of opposition in which a given minority has remained, sometimes over centuries, and never been fully attuned but does not seek to integrate into the polity by violent means
contexts are modes of attunement in which different groups both have legitimate and potential dominant claims and exist side by side. Uneasy contexts may unravel or continue peacefully
modes of opposition which have led to greater integration, policy change and social justice
Belonging
perdures among groups that coexist in opposition and may decompose at any moment. Groups resent the presence of another even as their modes of attunement may be aligned at a given moment
generally applies to minority groups that continue in a position of marginality over long periods and for whom attunement is always a relative achievement
allows groups that have found a mode of attunement to coexist but with a suspicion and fear among each group or individual that their position may be supplanted or be challenged
achieved when oppositional groups have overcome their opposition to achieve greater inclusivity and social justice. Opposition remains, but the violent clash of interests has been overcome with policy and institutional outcomes of expanded belonging.
Outcome
when one group refuses the continued presence of another within a regulatory rights pathway
allows for groups to continue as they have, even amidst a relative failure of full attunement
allows for a relative achievement of attunement. Though it remains unsettled, it emerges when institutional, legal and policy frameworks have been found to support short and medium-term attunement
comes when the essential drivers of opposition have been grasped as sources of injustice and are identified by extensive legal, policy and institutional frameworks as detrimental to the community
