SIMSOC was originally developed by William Gamson as a tool to teach sociology students about the dynamics of conflict at the societal level. A detailed description of the simulation can be found in this article by Wolpe about his Burundi program:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/ACF8CC.pdf

ISC’s approach is a heavily organic approach to change. We support efforts in areas where some stakeholders have already recognized their common interests, and we facilitate civil society efforts to re-frame a particular issue along these lines. But what about societies, or issues, where the opposing views have become so entrenched that this organic approach can’t get a toehold? Post-war Burundi is one example. I would argue that present day Serbia is another.

In these situations, where opposing stakeholders’ views have become so entrenched, and where a zero-sum game approach has become so pervasive, I believe that ISC’s approach, while necessary, is not sufficient to get society as a whole to move past whatever is causing the gridlock. Our support for passionate civil society leaders and their causes may achieve some movement around the edges. But for situations like Serbia, I see real value in pairing this work with something that directly targets the people/mindsets that are causing the blockage in the first place. That’s the role I see for exercises like SIMSOC as used by Howard Wolpe in Burundi (or for the scenario-visioning process work by Adam Kahane, that Enrique is considering for CSAI)

SIMSOC itself is an exercise that makes people step outside of their entrenched relationships and see the dynamics of those relationships from a more detached, analytical perspective. It forces people to appreciate the role of power inequalities in shaping behavior, and to acknowledge the existence of common interests even among adversaries. It’s very powerful and especially useful for conflict/post conflict environments. I think that this simulation tool is very complementary to what ISC does and that it would be great to incorporate it into our approaches. It would expand our versatility/credibility, especially in conflict/post conflict environments. I disagree with the idea that we’ve built upon/moved beyond what his program does–I think that we’ve focused on one application of some of the principles his article emphasizes, and he on others. I’d love for us to find an opportunity to merge the two.