Some call it “lazy,” while others see it as “one of humanity’s greatest inventions”: compromise. In 2023, the research alliance “Democratic Vistas” devoted a conference to this very topic. Goethe University’s Forschungskolleg Humanwissenschaften Institute of Advanced Studies has now published the resulting volume, “Compromise – A Democratic Way of Life.”
On the spectrum between outright rejection and thoughtful endorsement, the panel discussion leaned strongly in one direction: four of the five authors present (out of a total of ten contributors) argued in favor of compromise as “a democratic way of life”, a phrase echoed in the book’s subtitle. In other words, most of the authors – who research and teach at Goethe University – understand compromise as one of THE central tools democratic societies use to manage conflict. No pluralistic democracy exists without conflict, and no democratic conflict resolution works without compromise, explained political scientist Ulrich Willems from Münster in his opening remarks. Drawing on John Dewey’s idea of “democracy as a way of life,” Willems described compromise as a pragmatic mechanism that allows societies to reduce tensions in a universal, flexible, and nonviolent way – especially in times of growing polarization. Where compromise is absent, he argued, conflicts are either settled authoritatively by decree or escalate into violence that benefits only one side. (Later in the evening, Greta Wagner introduced yet another possibility: conflicts can also be “forgotten,” sometimes to the benefit of all involved.) These considerations, Willems concluded, offer strong reasons to examine the “compromise paradox” more systematically in the social sciences – a paradox in which “one of humanity’s greatest inventions” (Georg Simmel) continues to suffer from a poor public reputation.
In Compromise, Positions are not Lost
The newly published volume reflects the conference’s dialogical spirit: “each contribution is followed by responses that critically comment on, reframe, or expand upon previously stated theses.” Building on Willems’ historical overview of compromise, conflict researcher Nicole Deitelhoff highlighted two defining features: the provisional and conditional nature of compromises, shaped by institutions and formal rules. What is often seen as a weakness – that compromise merely “pacifies” conflicts for a limited time – is, in her view, one of its greatest strengths. Provisionality frequently makes conflict resolution possible in the first place. Unlike consensus, compromise does not require participants to abandon their positions altogether. Instead, selected elements of different viewpoints are incorporated –often unevenly, depending on power relations – while other positions remain outside the agreement and can be revisited later. Deitelhoff also emphasized that compromises are often reinforced by ritualized conditions, such as clearly defined procedures in labor negotiations. At the same time, she noted that even these stabilizing rules can themselves become subject to renegotiation.
The role of the outsider on the panel was taken by Darrel Moellendorf (“I’m delighted!”), who passionately argued for uncompromising action in the societal conflict surrounding the “transition away from fossil fuels.” The political scientist and philosopher insisted that certain issues demand an “uncompromising stance because of the urgency of the present moment.” He cited Martin Luther King’s call for an immediate end to the Vietnam War as a historical example supporting his position. Moellendorf presented multiple reasons why compromise is no longer acceptable when it comes to phasing out fossil fuels. His colleagues and members of the audience, however, challenged this view, asking whether the path toward reducing CO2 emissions does not itself require compromise. They also pointed out that the 2035 phase-out target is already the product of extensive negotiations.
Compromise versus Deal
Moellendorf’s controversial position brought into focus two vulnerabilities of compromise that are addressed elsewhere in the volume. When compromises are made half-heartedly, imposed under pressure, quickly undermined, or when previously stabilizing rules lose their authority, compromise risks degenerating into a mere deal – something widely regarded with skepticism or disdain. Other contributors explore the idea that some issues are more suitable for compromise than others, and that certain conflicts may involve “indivisible” stakes. Political theorist Thomas Biebricher, for example, observes that some political actors deliberately “seek to discredit compromise”, portraying it as “weakness or the betrayal of principles” in order to advance their own agendas. Even so, the authors argue that a culture of compromise in pluralistic democracies can only be defended convincingly if its shortcomings are taken seriously. This includes acknowledging that some compromises are genuinely bad – whether because they disadvantage third parties or unfairly burden one side of the conflict.
Is the Process of Gaining Knowledge a Form of Compromise?
Greta Wagner added yet another dimension to the discussion by returning to the example of climate change. Drawing on a long-term study in a village in the Rheinhessen region, she described how a carefully negotiated compromise helped prevent a larger conflict between refugees and long-term residents, highlighting the role of volunteers who acted as so-called “agents of compromise.”
The final two contributions in the volume venture into a new field of inquiry: they examine how compromise shapes scientific knowledge, or whether scientific insights themselves might emerge through similarly pragmatic processes of negotiation. Alenka Ambroz, for instance, drawing on Walter Benjamin, interprets compromise as a form of “translation” – a process of mediation between different modes of thinking and different languages.
Nicole Deitelhoff, known for her gift for incisive formulations, captured the ambivalence of the discussion with a sigh: compromises are fragile and vulnerable in pluralistic societies marked by unequal power relations, polarization, and declining trust in established institutions – and yet a culture of compromise remains absolutely essential as a “democratic way of life.” “Democracy,” she concluded, “is the most aggravatingly beautiful thing there is.” Why this is so is one of the many questions explored in this volume.
Info
Der Kompromiss. Eine demokratische Lebensform [The Compromise: A Democratic Way of Life], published by Gunther Hellmann, transcript Verlag, 2025 (published in the series “Democratic Vistas: Reflections on the Atlantic World” at Goethe University’s Forschungskolleg Humanwissenschaften Institute for Advanced Studies)
