(3)Select someone on one side who can help solve the problem--Find someone with influence in this situation whom you can advise on what needs to be done to resolve the conflict.

(4)Select actors on the other side--Find someone on the other side who can bring about changes in the situation.

(5)Estimate their choices, as they perceive them--If they are not doing what you think they should be doing, there must be a reason why. Draw up a balance sheet of consequences to them if they do not do what you think they ought to, and what will happen to them if they do agree to do what you want. This should tell you why they are not acting the way you think they should.

Yesable Propositions

(6)Invent some "yesable propositions"--Suggest some actions they might conceivably be expected to take that would at least help solve the conflict. These proposals cannot be in the form of "You should do something about your army," but should be specific enough so that merely saying "yes" to them paves the way for the action to be undertaken.

(7)Estimate their new choice--How do they see their options now in the wake of this new alternative you have offered them? Can they be expected to accept the advice, or can you convince them to agree?

(8) The Synthesis--Convince the person of influence on "our side" to convey this yesable proposition to the significant actors on "their side" in a simple, direct and convincing way, so that they may adopt this suggestion and help solve the conflict.

It sounds nice, but does it work?

Fisher himself admits that the chances of a single message to a government official producing a substantive policy change is small. But this does not deter him. "Some people say, 'But that idea will never work,'" he says. "I'm an optimist. If I have one chance in 100 of changing history, that's good odds."

That chance may not be as farfetched as some would imagine. As creator and moderator for a year of "The Advocate," a public television series that presents conflicting viewpoints on a different issue each show, Fisher led the late President Gamel Abdul Nasser of Egypt to admit in 1970 his willingness to accept in principle the existence of Israel. This admission sent U.S. diplomats scurrying to Cairo, and helped produce the first Sinai disengagement agreement--at least if a letter from then-Secretary of State William P. Rogers, thanking Fisher for his efforts, can be believed.

Fisher gives his students the same chance to change history, if only in a small way. Students in Soc Sci 174 must write a 15-page memorandum to someone in a position to do something constructive about an international conflict, telling that person what he or she can do immediately to help the situation. Well-written memorandums are actually sent off to their targets, with a cover letter from Fisher.

Many of Fisher's Harvard colleagues believe his approach to conflicts is a useful and innovative one. Ernest R. May, professor of History, who concentrates on foreign affairs, says Fisher is "very able, very stimulating, very provocative. He has a very practical approach." Thomas C. Schelling, Littauer Professor of Political Economy and an inventor of the highly-influential "game theory," says Fisher "has a lot of good ideas and a lot of bad ideas, but many people don't get any ideas. He's an optimist and he may be off in the clouds, but people who are not off in the clouds never try to come up with solutions."

Some students in Soc Sci 174 last year had complaints about Fisher and his course. A common criticism was that the course "lacked substance." Others said the lectures were repetitive, and the weekly full-class discussion sections were useless. Students complained the reading list contained unclear or highly theoretical works, and the weekly problems sets were ambiguous and not very useful.

Bruce Patton '77, who took the course last year and is now its head sectionman, says Fisher recognized these problems and has tried to correct them this time around. Patton and four other students spent much of the summer working with Fisher to revise and improve the course. The syllabus was expanded, the reading list changed, the problem sets clarified and the discussion sections discarded in favor of a second Fisher lecture each week. Patton says the weaknesses last year--the first time the course was offered--stemmed from organizational problems, not from inherent flaws in Fisher's negotiating theory.

Fisher agrees that the course material is sometimes redundant, but says this repetition is necessary. "If you're teaching someone how to do things instead of just talking about them, then there's a certain amount of drilling needed. I'm like a swimming coach who has to keep repeating instructions so they'll learn how to swim," he notes.