Legitimation Technologies as Factors of Political Mediation

DOI: 10.46340/eppd.2025.12.2.4

Kamil Prymakov, PhD in Law
Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine
Serhii Stavchenko, D.Sc. in Political Science
Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine
Mykhailo Zienkin, PhD in History
Dnipro University of Technology, Dnipro, Ukraine
Oleksandr Vysotskyi, D.Sc. in Political Science
Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine

How to cite: Prymakov, K., Stavchenko, S., Zienkin, M., & Vysotskyi, O. (2025). Legitimation Technologies as Factors of Political Mediation. Evropský politický a právní diskurz, 12, 2, 41-53. https://doi.org/10.46340/eppd.2025.12.2.4

 

Abstract

This study explores the critical role of legitimation technologies in enhancing the effectiveness of political mediation as a mechanism for achieving societal consensus, resolving conflicts, and ensuring the stability of governing structures. Political mediation operates within the public sphere, fostering dialogue between citizens, authorities, and institutions to negotiate power, influence, and social cohesion. Legitimacy serves as both a prerequisite and an outcome of successful political mediation, granting mediators the authority to facilitate agreements and ensuring the acceptance of outcomes by conflicting parties. The study identifies and analyses key legitimation technologies – mythologization, symbolization, communicative, and value-normative technologies – that shape perceptions, mobilize public support, and construct shared realities necessary for consensus-building. Mythologization fosters emotional resonance through shared historical or cultural narratives, while symbolization appeals to archetypes and irrational aspects of human consciousness. Communicative technologies organize dialogue and reinterpret socio-political reality, while value-normative technologies instill norms and ideals that guide behaviour and legitimize decisions. Despite their potential, these technologies face challenges, including the risk of superficial agreement, manipulation, and the fabrication of consensus, which undermine genuine legitimacy and trust. The research underscores the existential importance of legitimation technologies in political mediation, demonstrating their capacity to transform polarized interests into cohesive societal frameworks. By integrating philosophical, hermeneutic, and cultural studies approaches, the study reveals the interconnectedness of cognitive, axiological, and psychological dimensions in constructing legitimate political mediation processes. Ultimately, the analysis highlights the dual nature of legitimation technologies as tools for both stabilizing governance and navigating profound socio-political crises through strategic communication and symbolic innovation.

Keywords: political mediation, legitimation technologies, mythologization, symbolization, political communication, conflict resolution, political consensus, public sphere, legitimacy of power

 

References

Aall, P. (1996). The Power of Nonofficial Actors in Conflict Management. In: Chester, A. et al (ed.) Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict. United States Institute of Peace Press, 477-496.

Andersen, H.C. (2008). The Annotated Hans Christian Andersen. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Apel, K.-O. (1982). Die Situation des Menschen als ethisches Problem [The Human Situation as an Ethical Problem]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik [Journal of Pedagogy], 28(5), 677-693. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:14223 [in German].

Barnard, F. M. (2001). Democratic Legitimacy: Plural Values and Political Power. Montreal; Ithaca: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Baudrillard, J. (2007). In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities, or, The End of the Social. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e); Cambridge, Mass.: Distributed by MIT Press.

Bercovitch, J. (2009). Mediation and Conflict Resolution. In: Bercovitch, J. et al. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution. London: SAGE, 340-354.

Caune, J. (1999). Pour une éthique de la médiation [For an Ethics of Mediation]. Grenoble: Grenoble University Press. [in French].

Cloke, K. (2001). Mediating Dangerously: the Frontiers of Conflict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Coicaud J.-M. (2002). Legitimacy and Politics: A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Danilyan O., et al. (2023). Value Aspects of the Safe Existence of Social Systems in an Unstable World. Cogito, 15(4), 60-78. https://cogito.ucdc.ro/COGITO_DECEMBER_2023.pdf

Deschamps, J. (2019). Mediation: a Concept for Information and Communication Sciences. London: ISTE Ltd; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Duursma, A. (2020). African Solutions to African Challenges: The Role of Legitimacy in Mediating Civil Wars in Africa. International Organization, 74(2), 295-330. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000041

Eklou, H. et, &Tonyeme, B. (2023) . Libéralisme consensualiste et réalité politique: quels repères pour une démocratie apaisée? [Consensual Liberalism and Political Reality: What are the Guidelines for a Peaceful Democracy?] Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques [Journal of Philosophical and Theological Sciences], 107(2), 307-324. https://doi.org/10.3917/rspt.1072.0307 [in French].

Gadras, S. (2010). La médiation politique comme cadre d’analyse de l’évolution des pratiques de communication au sein de l’espace public local [Political Mediation as a Framework for Analyzing the Evolution of Communication Practices Within the Local Public Space]. Les enjeux de l’information et de la communication [The Challenges of Information and Communication], 2, 12-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/enic.hs02.0100

Glare, P.G.W. (ed.) (2012). Oxford Latin Dictionary. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor.

Guillaume-Hofnung, M. (2012). La mediation [Mediation]. Paris: University Press of France.

Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1998). The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Kalynovskyi, Y.Y., et al. (2024). The Value and Security Role of Knowledge in the Sociocultural Space of Modernity. Cogito, 16(3), 20-42. https://cogito.ucdc.ro/COGITO%20no.3_September%2030.09.2024%20.pdf

Katzenstein, P. J. (ed.) (1996). Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1-32.

Krasner, S. D. (1983). Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Veriables. International Regimes, 1-23.

Lamizet, B. (1998). La médiation politique [Political Mediation]. Paris: L’Harmattan. [in French].

Lasswell, H.D. (1949). Language of Politics; Studies in Quantitative Semantics. New York: G.W.Stewart.

Lederach, J.P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Manheim, E. (1979). Aufklärung und öffentliche Meinung: Studien zur Soziologie der Öffentlichkeit im 18. Jahrhundert [Enlightenment and Public Opinion: Studies in the Sociology of the Public Sphere in the 18th Century]. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog. [in German].

Manheim, E. (1998). The Sociology of Knowledge Reconsidered. Medien & Zeit, 13(2), 14-17.

Morineau, J. (1999). L’esprit de mediation [The Spirit of Mediation]. Ramonville Saint-Agne: Editions Érès.
[in French].

Podziba, S.L. (2012). Civic Fusion: Mediating Polarized Public Disputes. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution.

Reich, W. (2013). The Mass Psychology of Fascism. New York, Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Servais, C. (2016). La médiation. Théorie et terrains [Mediation. Theory and Fields]. Brussels: De Boeck.
[in French].

Six, J.-F. (1990). Le temps des médiateurs [The Time of Mediators]. Paris: Le Seuil. [in French].

The Christian Standard Bible (2017). 1 Timothy 2:5. Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Bible Publishers.

Simpson, J., et al (eds.) (1997a). The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2(AD).

Simpson, J., et al (eds.) (1997b). The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 4(L-Q).

Wehr, P., & Lederach, J. P. (1991). Mediating Conflict in Central America. Journal of Peace Research, 28(1), 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343391028001009

Komentáře jsou uzavřeny.