History, memory, and conflict resolution research and application

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution: Research and Application Barbara Tint

This article is the second of a two-part series and presents empirical research into the study of history, memory, and long-term intractable conflict. Interviews with members of the Israeli and Palestinian communities serve as the basis for this research. A variety of constructs emerged that inform conflict resolution practice, including a strong orientation to the past and its link to identity, emotion, and how past beliefs inform present perceptions. Recommendations are offered for how to integrate historical matter more fully into practice.

C

onflict resolution is a field that attempts to address situations that have occurred in the past, work with them in the present, and create a better future. As with any effort that spans these temporal domains, we struggle with the challenges of how heavily to reside in any one of these arenas at the expense of the others. Within conflict resolution practice, we are constantly moving among old wounds, present dilemmas, and future solutions. If we err, we tend to err in being focused on the future at the expense of the past; we want to solve the problem, not recycle it. Practitioners are often uncertain as to how to navigate historical terrain, particularly when it is long-standing, and often look to the future for creating an opportunity for greater impact than a reflective focus usually awards us. Mediation, in particular, tends to be more future-focused (Moore, 2003), while reconciliation work tends to spend more time considering historical matter (Bar-Tal and Bennink, 2004; Lederach, 1997). This article is the second in a series (Tint, 2010) that addresses the power of memory and history in

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY, vol. 27, no. 4, Summer 2010 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Conflict Resolution • DOI: 10.1002/crq.20003

369

370

TINT

working with intractable conflict. Although the first article presented the theoretical framework for considering issues of memory and history within conflict scenarios and explored how the field of conflict resolution has approached this material, this article considers some empirical research in this area and offers analysis and implications for practitioners.

In considering the issues that connect memory to conflict, the first article in the series gives a basis for understanding that connection more deeply. In summary, memory is a fluid process that occurs at the collective level so that both individuals and groups are impacted by the constructed and social nature of remembering (Coser, 1992; Halbwachs, 1950/1980; Pennebaker, Paez, and Rime, 1997). For social groups in conflict, the embedded nature of memories is deeply connected to social narratives and commemoration (Hutton, 1993; Neal, 1998; Schwartz, 1982; Zerubavel, 1995), identity (Conway, 1997; Deutsch, 1973; Rose, 1996; Zerubavel, 1995), and emotions (Neal, 1998; Putnam and Wondelleck, 2003; Retzinger and Scheff, 2000). These elements contribute to conflicts that are intractable in nature and often elude resolution (Coleman, 2000, 2003; Kriesberg, 2007; Putnam and Wondelleck, 2003). Although these elements tend to be explored more fully within the context of larger-scale communal conflicts, these issues also reverberate within long-term conflicts on the individual and micro levels as well. As conflict resolvers, we are often left with the sense that although we know that the past is important, we are not quite sure what we are to do with it.

In considering these issues with a society deeply emblematic of these challenges and one often cited as an example of intractability, we now turn to an empirical study of these questions. Research conducted in Israel and Palestine explores these questions of history, memory, and perceptions of conflict and its potential resolution. Even though every society’s unique history plays an important role in the evolution of its social and political challenges, the role of history and memory is of particular significance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “History in the Middle East has a marvelous elasticity. It is easily stretched, twisted, compressed in the hands of its custodians, squeezed to fit into any thesis of righteous cause or pious grief” (Shipler, 1987, p. 10). The past in these societies is of great relevance to this issue because of the long-term nature of the conflict, the frequent use of historical matter to define and justify various positions, and the ancient dimensions to the region and its populations. Furthermore, Middle Eastern culture is often seen as drawing great strength, knowledge, and value from the past in different ways than other cultures do (Neuliep, 2009).

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 371

The research presented explores the concepts most salient to the relationship between memory and intractability, particularly the interrelationships of identity, emotions, and perception of the conflict. The discussion offers both a theoretical and practical investigation into these issues and an analysis integrating these concepts into conflict resolution processes and practice.

Methodology This research incorporated qualitative, constructivist methodology operating from the assumptions that reality is seen as a subjective and constructed notion for both individuals and groups, that constructions are pluralistic and relativistic in nature, and that there are often multiple and conflicting realities from which people operate (Gergen, 1985; Gergen and Gergen, 2000; Schwandt, 2000). Construction of reality within the constructivist paradigm applies to construction of past as well as present reality (Schwandt, 2000), and it is these historical dimensions to this perspective that are vital to the purpose of this study. Because one of the main assertions of the literature on memory is subjectivity and fluidity in the process of recall, the constructivist paradigm constitutes a sound framework for this research.

Analysis was rooted in a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2001, 2002; Strauss and Corbin, 1998, 1999) that is inductive in nature and generates emerging themes from the data. Furthermore, it is an iterative process whereby simultaneous and reciprocally influencing data collection and analysis form the basis of the research.

The main source of data in this study was in-depth, semistructured interviews. A variety of questions surrounding memory, history, and participants’ perceptions of the current conflict and its potential resolution formed the basis of the interviews. Participants were selected according to a variety of criteria. First, they were chosen on the basis of their cultural and experienced lives of being a member of either the Jewish Israeli or the Palestinian Arab community. Within that frame, participants ranged from having been born and raised their entire lives within the country in question to those who had never actually set foot on the land. Participants’ own sense of cultural roots in either of these groups was the basis for selection. Participants were from both the Middle East and the United States. The choice of including participants from both regions was rooted in the desire to explore issues of memory as they affected a wider cultural group and not those necessarily living with the conflict daily. In the investigation of collective CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

372

TINT

memory, the goal was to pursue these issues with a range of individuals to gain greater understanding of how far-reaching this phenomenon might be.

Participants were also selected according to age. Because a primary goal in this study was to investigate memory as internalized by cultural groups over time, the interest was in choosing participants who had learned the significant aspects of their cultural history through social transmission rather than direct experience. Therefore, participants ranged from twentyone to thirty-five years of age, so that they were all born after the establishment of the state of Israel and after the 1967 war, the two most pivotal and defining events of the region. This allowed participants’ responses to be reflective of acquired memory around historical and pivotal events within these societies rather than remembrances experienced directly.

With the exceptions of cultural identity and age as variables controlled for in the study, participant selection was otherwise based on purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002), which suggests a goal of finding participants on the basis of intentionality of purpose. In this case, an attempt was made to generate a sample of balance, considering factors of cultural identification, gender, political orientation, religious affiliation, educational level, and locale.

The goal was to include a range of participants that reflected the varying dimensions within these societies without biasing the sample with an overrepresentation of one particular group. As the theoretical dimension to the research evolved, it propelled the process in the direction of certain additional participants for the purpose of greater exploration of the emerging theory. This process of theoretical sampling is endemic to a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2001, 2002). To the greatest possible extent, the sample was increasingly generated by what the data revealed and ultimately demanded in the emerging theoretical narrative. Theoretical sampling was combined with snowball sampling (Patton, 2002), which generated future participants from the suggestions and input of previous or current participants. The size of the sample was determined by redundancy and saturation (Creswell, 1998; Morse, 1995); the data were seen as full as new participants or data become less likely to yield any new categories or information.

Participants were initially pursued through a variety of organizations in the United States and the Middle East. Thirty-three individuals from these communities made up the participant pool for this study; additional participants were recruited but only thirty-three completed the study. Interviews were conducted in English when possible; however, translators were used on several occasions when necessary; English ability was not a criterion for participation.

Participant demographics are presented in Table 1.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 373

Table 1. Participant Demographics

Jewish Israeli Palestinian

Male

Female

United States

Israel

PT*

11 8

7 7

4 6

13 4

1 5

* Palestinian Territories

The demographic table suggests a less-than-ideal balance in gender, culture, and locale. This reflects the challenges inherent in attempting to create a perfect sample balance and was due to logistics, scheduling, and some likely (but unstated) resistance to the process.

Results The data revealed a variety of constructs that confirmed assertions made in the literature as well as offering deeper insights for societies embedded in intractable conflict, and for conflict resolution practitioners. A focus in the study was on the link among past history, present circumstance, and future perceptions. These themes tended to move from initial categories of broad description to subtler and more particular relationships within those broader frameworks. Broad categories included events, themes, and impact of the past; identity; use of the past; and perceptions of the future. Because the limitations of this article do not allow a full discussion of the results and analysis, this article explores the data as they relate to development of group memory, identity, and emotions and their relationship to conflict perception and resolution. Participants’ voices are excerpted as examples of some of the significant points that emerged.

The degree to which participants prioritized the past was a significant dimension of the data. Eighty-five percent of all participants suggested that the past was of great importance and something that could not or should not be left behind. The tendency of these participants to speak to both the importance of the past and its integral dimension of the present demonstrates the power of history and memory in their current lives and experiences.

The past here for the Palestinians and the Arabs—a source, a feeling of nostalgia that the lost, uh, identity, the lost paradise, for the past. So the past is a reminder of, for me in the Middle East, reminder of the history CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

374

TINT

of this area—history of wars, conflicts. And, uh, I would like to think of the past, but really should not—we never forget the past. It’s very important to keep it. If the past is important, I think it gives us vision for the future. (PA 4) It’s the most, the most important thing. There’s a saying: “In the memory, the memory is the secret of the developing nation.” Without the historical aspect, the conflict would be different. But with the responsibility of the past and the Jewish people, for its generations before and after, and all the people who died dreaming about the coming to Israel.

Without the historical way of the conflict, it would be, it’s hard for me to imagine that. But without it maybe it would be an ordinary conflict between two peoples. That want to share, have the same rights, and want to share the country. But with the historical way, I can’t take out the historical aspect . . . you cannot take out the historical aspect from the conflict because it’s there. It’s very important. (JI 7)

Those who suggested that the past was not a priority found it difficult to imagine a way to move forward. They acknowledged that leaving the past behind was something easier said than done. Even those who said the past didn’t matter couldn’t ignore its impact.

Well, I think it’s, uh, the past affects in a way, you know, that I don’t trust them. I don’t trust, uh, the Arabs. Em, I don’t trust their words.

You know, if they say, you know “Okay. We’re not going to, we’re not going to make any more, uh, bomb explosions.” And I don’t believe them, that they won’t do it. Or they won’t kidnap, uh, soldiers or people. Or you know, I think that, uh, basically it’s to do with trust. To do with trust. I don’t trust them. . . . The past is not important. It’s gone.

What’s, what’s important it’s in right now. That’s in what, what happens right now. That’s what important. (JI 12)

In this light, the data revealed a powerful orientation toward the past, even for those who preferred to have a stronger future focus.

In exploring the origin of group narratives, participants shared three primary sources of cultural memory: family stories (100 percent), education (64 percent), and the media (46 percent). Participants also spoke of a general acculturation (58 percent) that was difficult to specify but was “everywhere.”

Family stories were filled with historical, political, and cultural information CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 375

that transcended their significance as mere family recollections. As participants recalled family stories, they exhibited a strong connection to the experiences of their ancestors through both the detail and the emotional content of these recollections. Family stories tended to elicit strong emotional content that was different in tone from other more nationalistic or politicized memories gleaned from other sources.

She told me a lot of very terrible stories, which happened through, during the war. After the war. When they were coming, and, about the massacres, which is the Jewish armies. And about the Jewish organization like Itzel or Behir, which they did against the Palestinians. About the very dark and, history of her, experience or her past was very bad experience. And her parents also told her about the days before. About the beginning of this past, the last century, when, after the World War I, after the English and the, the, yes English Mandates, it was very terrible and very hard, very strong days and ideas, and past for them. (PA 7) My family history, it’s like in some way, like the whole Jewish history.

The Holocaust and the immigrations, State of Israel, the army.

My father fought in Jerusalem in, ’67 in the war. It’s from the, the going out from Mitzraim, from Egypt. It’s from the Exodus and the Ten Commandments, Torah, the Bible, the Temple, the Exile. The fight between the two parts of Israel, Israel and Judeah, that in the long run, was the cause to the Exile. (JI 4)

Although it was evident that the political messages embedded in the family stories had a tremendous impact on the participants’ worldview and their view of the conflict, this was not an issue always acknowledged within the context of family history. Participants in both groups acknowledged strong processes of politicization operating within other societal institutions, but they did not connect politicization with family recall.

Education, as a powerful source of narrative construction, was an extremely important dimension of collective memory. There was a strong asymmetry in the information that people from both of these cultures received in their educational experiences. This asymmetry existed in the quantity and quality of information learned. Furthermore, the data on education revealed a strong subjectivity of information taught about the past.

Curriculum and textbooks were seen not just as reporting history but creating it. In comparison to family stories, educational experiences generated a CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

376

TINT

great deal of critical reflection and challenge among the participants. Jewish Israelis and Palestinians questioned much of their educational training and demonstrated great awareness of the politicization of their educational curriculum and its impact on their collective mind-set.

From the age of high school it was sort of pumped into us, a lot of, “You’re Israeli.” Your history, the Jewish culture, I mean the Jewish and Israeli cultures sort of integrated. . . . Well, I can assume that that’s what gave me my Israeli, a lot of my Israeli identity, because a lot of it is stories about nothing I went through, but that people came a 100 years ago, or a 150 years ago, and started, a lot of it was history classes. I mean, I can remember myself, three or four years ago, sitting and listening to the stories, and getting very excited about “This is my state, this is my land, and I’m here I guess to live in it, defend it, build it.” (US JI 3) There is no mention of Palestine in our history books. Because who writes the curriculums or the materials is under the Israeli Education Ministry.

So we, eh, we know nothing about our land’s history, or about our borders. And in our maps there is no mention of Palestine. Only Israel. They wrote Israel in all the maps. So they tried to took, to take it from our hearts. It was very hard to live in that situation. . . . They used to use the power of the education to delete or to omit the, the, the mention or maybe to our history or our lands or our past or our rights. (PA 5)

There was a great deal of discussion about the media as a significant source of information and strong influence on people’s individual and collective perceptions. The media images that people spoke of reflected memories of events that occurred during their own lives as well as ones that predated them. As with education, there was significant discussion about the media being a system of bias and distortion. Distortion was seen as rooted in the political agenda of the power structures that controlled the media domain within the societies.

My parents always used to tell us TV, Arabic TV. Here the story is just different. Just watching TV here, I watched the, they had, what is it, that show, Channel 10, they had something about Palestinians and Israelis a long time ago. It was all true, until the end, and just like, starts going into stuff that we, I lived through and it wasn’t real. I’ve watched all the movies and then Egypt attacks, and all that, and that’s how I learned what really happened. But then, like what you see here on the media, it makes me so CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 377

angry, because what you see is like, you see Palestinians throwing rocks at soldiers and the soldier injured, but they don’t know that for one soldier injured, there’s five dead Palestinians on the other side of the camera. You know? And that is just not shown on TV here. But, when you watch Arabic TV, because we have satellite, you know, you see the side of what’s really going on. I mean, I’ve seen that when I was a kid. (US P 1) Also because we, everyone is believing in his, it believes and they are not open to hear the other side. . . . They were taught from the, what they see in the TV, and, eh, newspapers, and how people speak.

They’re, they’re very extreme. They’re radical . . . you see the, you see in the TV all the manifest—when you see a lot of people that are shouting and. . . . And you heard, I forgot, by blood and by Palestinian, well I forgot the word. . . . So I remember this, and when you see such, a lot of people, and they don’t look gentle. They don’t look nice. They look like very, eh, very, very tough person—very scary. So this pictures stay in your, in your mind. (US I 2)

Collective memory seemed to be most strengthened when differing sources of information confirmed and reinforced each other. If family stories, education, media, and direct experience had a unified message, then the message appeared to have a stronger influence on societal members.

It was therefore dramatic when individuals experienced events that created a dissonance and a shift in perception. Differing levels of information, whether through individual experience or conflicting stories from different sources (between home and school, for example) created the openings for questioning or challenging of information to take place. Several participants shared the experience of shifting their perceptions when they encountered experiences that challenged many of the beliefs they had come to accept through the various sources of cultural learning. It was through these shifts that people began to question, more critically, some of their social memory; out of dissonance came the potential for transformation.

I always studying in, even in high school that in ’48 we fought against the Jordanians. And I did this seminar in, in university, about the relations between the Palestinians and the Jordanians. And all of a sudden, I read like thirty books, and then I, I read in one book that they didn’t fight Israel. They had a pact with Israel. So we gave them the West Bank. And that blew me away, see. So I went to all my friends and asked them, CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

378

TINT

“What do you know about, you know, fighting ’48.” And they say “Yeah.

We fought with this and that we fought with Jordan.” And I said, “No. But we had a pact with Jordan. We didn’t fight with Jordan.” “Really?”

Nobody knew about it, and I’m talking about people that finished university and finished M.A. And they didn’t know about it. (JI 6) You just think, OK, Israeli is a Jewish person, that’s not religion. That person’s Jewish. So you’re scared of ’em. We learned to be scared of ’em. We learned to avoid ’em and try to stay away from them. And, we learned that they’re the bad guy. Of course, when you move to the U.S., I met so many Jews, and it’s so not like that. It is just, they’re people, they’re people. Over there you see them as animals because they have guns, so you’re scared of them. Here, they’re just, I mean, I have so many Jewish friends, and I don’t consider it. Just, I think that’s stupid, but, I mean, we grew up thinking they’re bad. They’re just, they’re the evil people, and they’re gonna kill us when they took our home. That’s why, now I know, I can say I know the difference between an Israeli person and a Jewish person. Israelis are the soldiers to us, who took our land, and hate us. You know, hate anything called Palestinians. And there’s the Jews who want peace. (US P 1)

In this study, all participants were asked about their identity and the meaning it had for them. The responses about identity included a range of issues, including emphases on the cultural, religious, and historical dimensions to their sense of self. The connection of memory to identity was demonstrated consistently through the participants’ responses. The power of history in participants’ individual and collective sense of self was such that, for many, it was virtually impossible to speak of identity without speaking of history; they were inextricably entwined.

I start with the, the Jewish aspect. It means that I’m a part of, of a long chain in history, going back a long time that has a common faith and a common destiny. And being an Israeli, is being in a state that this identity can, had a national, um, translation. (JI 8) And, and yet, I mean, the fact, the past defines you. And your whole identity, without the history, without the past, you’re not complete.

You feel, even if you’re not, eh, if you’re not aware of it, sooner or later you will become aware of it. . . . I don’t know how long, you will realize that finally, what you have been doing for the last, for the past time CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 379

is nothing because something was missing, and this something can change the whole picture. (PA 2)

Participants held on to and remembered the significant and often traumatic events of their cultural past as a means by which to retain their identity, history, and cultural affiliation. In considering the impact of commemoration and group narratives, the most frequent memories people shared were those that had been highly commemorated. Volkan’s description of chosen glories and chosen traumas (1996, 1997) was in high evidence as participants’ recall of significant events continued to echo these themes. There were some recollections of events of great glory, but it was the historical traumas for both groups that carried the greatest weight in the collective memory system. Members from each group shared, without fail, their remembrance of traumatic cultural events that had taken place in history that predated them; this phenomenon was consistent across both cultural groups. For the Israelis it was the Holocaust, and for the Palestinians it was the displacement of 1948. In both cases, 100 percent of the participants addressed this aspect of their own cultural history, while most failed to speak of the traumatic events of the other group. The traumatic history for each group seemed to obscure the ability to fully acknowledge that of the other. The polarized, zero-sum dimension to the conflict was evident in relationship to the past as well as the present.

My cultural history. First thought that got to me, when you say my cultural story, eh. That my grandma’s family had to leave their houses, eh, from the village in ’48 because the Jews came to their village. And my grandma’s brother was killed—Eh, in ’48 they have to leave Haifa because the Jewish came and asked the Arabs to get out of the houses, because they frightened them and told them that “it’s dangerous for you because lots of Muslims, and go out and live somewhere and we’ll call you back.” But they never call them back to, eh, to return to their houses.

Actually these stories is not spoken, or nobody speak about it. (PA 1) I think more than, eh, more than 50 percent of my mom’s family got killed in the Holocaust. Eh, also, about the same from my dad’s family.

Yeah . . . it’s affected me by searching about my identity. What does it mean to be a Jew? I went to England for a while, and only then I discovered what it means to be Jew. Eh, what I found, um, that Jews are different from, from other people because of their, eh, how do you call it?

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

380

TINT

Their, um, religion. Because of their history. I mean each religion, it’s different, but being a Jew it’s, it’s different. (JI 12)

For participants who were more strongly oriented toward their own persecution, their view of the conflict seemed more entrenched. Those who described themselves as being more “right wing” or “militant” were more likely to be attached to the past as defining the conflict and its resolution. For the Jewish Israelis this came in the form of relying on Biblical references as justification for their presence in Israel and on the long history of suffering that allowed them to be there. For the Palestinians, their dislocation in 1948 was something burned into their memories, and for some the only resolution of the conflict would be to return things to the state of affairs prior to 1948. Although they knew that this was not likely, the attachment to the past represented the only means by which they felt justice and resolution could be served. For these participants, an unyielding view of the past was connected to their unyielding view of the present and the future. These perspectives then became integral to their relationship to each other and their participation in the conflict.

The impact of the past revealed a variety of phenomena that tended to reinforce conflict boundaries. The themes that emerged from the data revealed a variety of consequences of the past, such as increased group unity, a sense of collective responsibility, feelings of protectiveness, mistrust, a negative internalization of the conflict, stereotyping, the tendency to support the use of force, and various largely painful emotions.

Emotions played a significant role in the memories of the participants. Emotions were highly evident in both the recall of certain events and the lasting impact they had on individuals and the collective. Although not asked directly about their emotional experiences, participants frequently and easily shared their emotional responses to the events and circumstances in question. Recollection of historical events easily elicited not only the description of emotions experienced in earlier times but actual emotionality displayed in the retelling of these events. The telling of historical stories learned from others easily stimulated emotions. Most of the emotional memory was painful in nature. In particular, fear, anger, and sadness were the emotions most visible as participants told their stories.

Stories like this, it’s very affective. I mean, you know, it’s very difficult.

When you speak about the past, you know you just say, “OK. This is the past. And I’m now.” But the important thing, the past beginning very CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 381

important when it start to affect on you. Now and the future.

I know for sure, this will affect me all generation, and my children, my grand-grandchildren and everything. . . . I hope that they will not be sensitive like me. I hope, really, because it just will, it just upset them maybe.

And just give them, um, a sad feeling. Because when I think about it, really, only a sad feeling you know, sad thoughts, all my mind and everything. You can’t imagine the sorrow that my family got into. . . . You know, we in Arabic say that every, every sorrow, every heal will have always a mark that you will see. Whatever happens, this mark will always stay. (PA 8) The Arabs now, I don’t hate them. But I really fear from them. And it’s not, not logical fear—the fear will come straight away. And there is no reason for that. There’s nothing . . . it’s not logical. Because you know that you are doing, you’re, you are making all the Arabs into one, which is not fair because. But it’s something so deep, so you cannot get away from that.

You just cannot. Really, like, really it make me feel fear really bad when I heard Arab talking. You know, it’s like instinct. And I wish that it won’t be there, but it’s there. . . . And it’s maybe, like stupid or whatever. But it’s really tough on me to resist it. It’s part of me; it’s like, it’s there. (JI 10)

Other examples of the impact of the past that suggested a move away from reinforced conflict included a sense of motivation for a different future and a determination to resolve the issues. Participants saw that the past could be used in a variety of ways: to perpetuate and justify the conflict, or to transform it.

So, maybe also we use the past to justificate why I want to kill you or why I want to hate you. So if we talking about the past, there is two using for the past. First thing is to start here and not to continue on. Not to, to maybe to reach to any acknowledge or to understanding to each other. If, when I want to use the past that you are remember of the first fifty years when you kill us and you do massacres against us, it is happen.

And it is very important, eh, period of this history is very important for the both, but it, it isn’t mean, to stuck there and to blame each other and to put each other in the corner and to investigate each other about who did it and why you did it. And maybe who use the past to justificate his behaviors is the weak. Or maybe is the, the stronger also. (PA 7) The past, for me, in many, many ways, it’s sort of . . . it’s important, but very bad in the same way. Like, the past can tear people apart, or not CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

382

TINT

even, or prevent them from getting close. It’s like a bubble or something around you which contains a lot of prejudice, and hate. . . . I don’t know. History, if you look at history books, it’s basically about wars and conflicts and things like this. History does not . . . almost doesn’t have any, any shining points of hope, or I don’t know. From the Bible on, it’s wars all the time, and destruction and things like this. If people would come with clear mind, no history, they could really connect much easier. So, like, and then it might, might break us apart. It’s not always true, but, so, in some ways it’s also bad. (JI 2)

In considering the future, participants shared their hopes, their suggestions, and their fears. Suggestions surrounded increased contact between the two groups, greater learning of one another’s history and situational change that allowed a sense of justice in the present to help address the past. The need to include history was a dominant theme.

Sometimes, we, like the peace process. Eh, all the people who negotiation, who make negotiation in the peace process, they forget the past. They just see the future. They, eh, they can share the Israeli government, and they can speak with him and all this things. So, they, they see the future, because they think that this is what we have. This is what we can to do. So, Yanni, they, they see the future . . . they forget the past. When they forget the refugee, they forget about it. When they forget Jerusalem, they forget the past. When they forget Haifa and Jaffa, they forget the past. So, one of the things if you want to make the peace is you have to learn about the other party. And you have to, to study their history and their culture. . . . (PA 5)

Although much of the data revealed phenomena that were shared across both cultures as discussed above, there were certain insights that emerged as more particular to one of the societies in question and to this conflict in particular. This indicates that, even though certain constructs might generalize to other cultures and conflicts, each specific conflict and the societies involved will have its own means of organizing around its memory and history. In this section we consider the data as they relate more specifically to each cultural group.

Palestinian Arabs The data from the Palestinian participants revealed a powerful interplay between past and present that was reflective of the ongoing circumstances CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 383

experienced by the Palestinian people. For the Palestinian participants, the importance of the past was extremely significant because the consequences of past events were very much alive. There was a direct correlation between the emphasis of the past and the significant impact it was perceived to have on their present lives. Only two of the Palestinian participants suggested that leaving the past behind was a desirable goal. For the rest, the past was something they saw as either the most important aspect of the current situation or an integral component of it. For the Palestinian participants who spoke of the past as being integral to the present, there was an emphasis on the continued suffering of their people. For the Palestinians who more frequently expressed living with continuing consequences of the past, the inability to “let go” of the past took on a different dimension. Letting go of the past was not possible if it was continuously being replayed in the present; to do so might suggest an implicit acceptance of and surrender to the status quo. For these participants, even separating the past from the present was an artificial and impossible notion because the two were so intricately entwined.

For all the Palestinian participants, their sense of history and identity were strongly connected to place; they spoke of land and place as a central theme in their relationship to their history. What was lost became a defining beacon in their cultural identity. This sense of place was so powerful that some of the Palestinians spoke of “coming from” places they had never been. Their identity was rooted in the past, a place that for them no longer existed. Within that memory framework, it was the sense of displacement, dislocation, and loss that had the greatest impact on the participants’ sense of the past and the present. All of the Palestinian participants spoke of the displacement of their ancestors and their people. This was true not only for those who had experienced displacement directly but also for those who had not. The power of these historical events was universal; it became the defining event in the lives of the people and in the society as a whole.

The impact of these experiences was very powerful and was reflected in the data that emerged around the emotional experiences of the Palestinian participants. These responses revealed a strong emotional component that was directed both inward toward themselves and outward toward others.

All but one of the Palestinian participants addressed the negative internalization of history. This internalization came in the form of depression, selfblame, guilt, and doubt. Similarly, interviews with the Palestinians reflected sorrow, anger, and hatred and a sense of hopelessness for the future. It appeared that the greater the sense of disillusionment about the past and the present, the greater the hopelessness about the future.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

384

TINT

What was of great significance within the study was the source of historical information most typically reported by the Palestinian participants.

Many of the Palestinians spoke of their cultural history being suppressed; this suppression came from various institutions in their lives. This experience of suppression was widespread and occurred not only in Israel but in Jordan and Saudi Arabia as well, where some of the respondents had been raised as refugees. It was only within the family that the Palestinian participants consistently received a strong sense of their history. It was through family stories and experiences that many of the participants learned about their cultural history in ways that offset what they had learned—or didn’t learn—from school or the media.

For the Palestinians, the majority of the responses to this question reflected a largely singular sense of Palestinian identity. This singular identity was strongly cultural and transcended current geography or circumstance; identity was heavily tied to the sense of the past and place. None of the Palestinian participants expressed any ambivalence about their connection to their cultural heritage. The attachment to and striving for identity was strengthened through their marginalized circumstances. There was no differentiation between the U.S. participants and those from the Middle East in this regard.

Although the Palestinians had less of an opportunity to learn about their own cultural history, they were in a position to learn a great deal about that of the Jewish Israelis. Many more Palestinians knew of Jewish cultural history than the other way around; this knowledge was seen both as a burden when it was imposed and as a tool for survival when knowledge was seen as power. This knowledge of the other was due to the agenda put forward by dominating institutions, or to their circumstances, which required that they know the lives and the culture of the people around them.

Power was a significant theme for the Palestinian participants, who addressed issues of power and injustice more frequently than the Israeli participants. This sense of inequity was not simply a matter of their current circumstances but of their sense of the past and the experiences of their cultural and familial history. For the Palestinians, the sense of past injustice was intricately tied to their focus on the past as a significant variable in their current circumstances. Again, this holds true for the awareness that the Palestinians shared in the power differential in both the occurrence and the learning of the culture’s historical material. For many, the past could never be healed; the injustices and power imbalances within them seemed irrevocable.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 385

Jewish Israelis The experiences of history and memory were different for the Jewish Israelis than for the Palestinians, in a variety of ways. Although the Palestinians’ sense of their cultural history was more recent, the Jewish Israelis had a long-standing cultural identity that was often rooted in Biblical stories and recollections of ancient history that predated the current conflict.

Eight of the nine participants who spoke of ancient history as a significant and important dimension to their identity and history were Jewish Israelis.

The religious or biblical underpinnings of this history appeared more subtly embedded in Jewish Israeli culture than overtly put forth within historical knowledge.

Even though both populations expressed present and past experiences of suffering, the Jewish Israelis’ collective memory seemed more strongly anchored in a sense of ongoing and historical suffering that became deeply embedded in their identity as a people. This historical sense of persecution carried deeply not only into their sense identity but also into their current perceptions of the conflict. The Jewish Israeli participants experienced less present-day oppression than their Palestinian counterparts, but their recollections of long-standing persecution and oppression were always with them. The dramatic impact of this historical memory was such that difficult or threatening times within the current conflict easily reinforced this sense of inevitable and ongoing persecution.

Of additional significance in the data from the Jewish Israeli participants were the differences in orientation toward the past reflected by segments of society. The religious Jewish Israelis and those who tended to identify as strongly Jewish were highly oriented toward the past, having a greater sense of long-standing and ancient history in their collective memory. Those Jewish Israelis who identified more as secular Israeli had a sense of history that tended to be more focused on recent history and that of the political conflict of the last hundred years; this orientation paralleled the historical perspectives of the Palestinian participants. The Jewish Israelis who were more oriented toward a longer historical past and perceived the conflict through this lens were less inclined to demonstrate flexibility around a variety of issues endemic to this conflict, particularly their sense of land and place, their belief in the Jews as the original inhabitants of the region, and their ultimate right to be there.

Jewish Israeli identity was strongly informed by history. For many of the Jewish Israeli participants, their sense of history was the very basis for their identity as Jews and as Israelis. There were many heroic stories and CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

386

TINT

commemorations around significant victories and accomplishments that instilled a sense of pride. This promoting of heroic stories was seen as strongly correlated to the development of Israeli identity and nationalism. At the same time, the potential for this identity to be more fragmented than singular reflected the multiplicity of groups within the society. Although a more singular Israeli identity would likely have emerged in earlier years, particularly those during the establishment of the state of Israel, the current state of Jewish Israeli identity seemed more complex and multifaceted than it was for the Palestinians. Having lived as a people for thousands of years, and a nation for more than fifty, the Jewish Israelis replaced the tendency toward singularity with the complications of differing and often opposing groups. These differing factions within the society reflected a differing sense not only of their identity but of a differing sense of the past and the conflict as well.

The Jewish Israeli participants were almost exclusively the ones critical of their historical indoctrination. Some of the self-criticism and reflection that was beginning to emerge among the Jewish Israeli participants challenged the sense of history they had been taught and became a dividing point for many of these groups within Israeli society. This critical view of history tended to be expressed more by the Jewish Israeli participants identifying as “left-wing,” who, like the Palestinians, pointed out the power imbalances of the past and the present, the tendency of education to present a biased portrayal of history, and manipulation of history by the government. However, participants did not report challenging the historical stories at the time they learned them; it was only later in life, during reflection on their earlier experiences and introduction of new information that these criticisms emerged. With differing experiences and a greater distance from uniformity of information, the Jewish Israeli participants began more reflective criticism and a shift in perception.

Although most of the Jewish Israelis, like the Palestinians, tended to emphasize the past as an important dimension to their culture and the conflict, eight of the ten participants who suggested that the past was not as important were Jewish Israelis. This belied the universal referral to the Holocaust and reflected more of the emphasis on the hundred-year conflict of Israel-Palestine.

The numbers in this study continue to be too small to make generalizations, but certain significant questions emerge from this aspect of the data. For the Jewish Israelis, returning to the past may have had less appeal; the present was a better reality than what had been left behind. Furthermore, because it is the Jewish Israelis who have more to lose by returning to the more recent past, the greater number of them who preferred leaving the past behind may have reflected one means of protecting against losing ground in the conflict.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 387

The emotional component of the data from the Jewish Israeli participants was also significantly different from that of the Palestinians. The dominant emotion expressed by the Jewish Israeli participants was fear.

This feeling was anchored in the history of oppression and of present-day circumstances. The sense of protectiveness was frequently and directly associated with past events, particularly the Holocaust, while the sense of fear was more frequently associated with the immediacy of the conflict and the violence that exists in their current world. Past and present experiences of persecution and attack were extremely powerful as internalized history was reinforced in the present.

Discussion A variety of the constructs that emerged from the data have significant relevance to conflict transformation theory and practice. Although research was conducted with a relatively small sample and generalization cannot be presumed, it is likely that some of the issues that emerged have applicability for individuals and groups from a variety of intractable conflict scenarios. There is an obvious limitation of individual interviews in a study on social memory, but exploring the dimension of acquired rather than experienced memory helped address this dilemma. As Halbwachs (1950/1980) suggests, any group is merely a collection of individuals. Individual memory cannot be considered without the influence of the social context; nor can collective memory be considered without the impact of each individual on the evolution of the group mind. Of greatest import along these lines is the evidence of participants’ strong orientation toward the past, which was in high evidence. This was true even when participants suggested moving forward (but did not know how) or when they suggested the past was not important (but subsequently revealed a variety of ways in which it had affected them). The data suggested that how the past influenced people in the present was often out of their own awareness.

Identity was inextricably bound into past memories, history, and the collective impact of group narratives, and the embeddedness of history in individual and collective identities is crucial in exploration of identity-based conflicts. Within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both groups feel a threat to their identity, which embeds the struggle in a powerful zero-sum tug of war resulting in a polarized sense of collective identity (Halabi, 2000; Hofman, 1988; Kelman, 2001; Rouhana and Bar-Tal, 1998). It was evident through the data that this derived from past issues as well as present ones.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

388

TINT

One of the dramatic dimensions to this research is the limited degree to which people in conflicted societies learn of one another’s history. Learning is often either suppressed or biased to support the cultural belief system.

Although this was true for both groups, the need for the Palestinians to learn about the Israelis was different; it is those in the dominant role, in this case, the Israelis, who are more frequently without knowledge of the other’s experience. The experience of subordinate groups learning more about the dominant ones around them is a common phenomenon and has been cited as one way in which subordination is maintained, as well as being a survival tool for the subordinates (Baker Miller, 1995). Knowledge is asymmetrical in conflicts where parties have differing levels of power (Rouhana and Korper, 1996). Furthermore, because those from marginalized groups may have a stronger sense of history and memory cultivated through the family as opposed to other institutions, exploring the sources of cultural memory is one key to understanding the development of the group mind.

In working with cases of past or perceived injustice, the data suggest that those who feel historically wronged may be more inclined to have a stronger connection to the past and that those less negatively affected by past events may be more inclined to suggest that the past is less important.

For the Jews, the sense of their own historical persecution framed their perception of their identity and the conflict; for the Palestinians, the losses of 1948 and 1967 framed their current reality. The need to return to events connected with loss and trauma speaks to a variety of issues, including the enduring nature of loss, its need for acknowledgment, its power in presentday perceptions and identity, and its persistent presence in the face of continued lack of resolve.

The data revealed the tendency for memories to center around the significant and more extreme events in society; the opportunity to find more normalizing, humanizing events seemed to be lost. Strong emphasis on heroes and villains, glories and traumas (Volkan, 1996, 1997) tends to reinforce the polarity that develops in conflict scenarios. Focusing on the goodbad nature of many of the events in cultural collective memories adds to people remaining entrenched in the past. Furthermore, the data reveal that more nationalistic sentiments, subject to challenge or criticism, are elicited through historical stories and that more personal feelings, less subject to challenge, are elicited through family stories.

In considering the broad range of data that this research generated, a variety of emergent ideas developed. For brevity’s sake, these emerging theories are presented here as propositions to consider for further exploration: CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 389

• Memory is an asymmetric phenomenon; both individuals and groups often have differing memories of the same events.

• Within a conflicted society, people’s perceptions of the past impart a strong dimension to their perceptions of the present and the conflict.

• The degree to which people live with the past is often out of their own awareness.

• People whose identity is more rooted in history are likely to hold onto and use the past as important in a conflict resolution scenario.

• Those more oriented toward the past, or those more fixed in their beliefs and perceptions of the past, may be less amenable to conflict resolution processes.

• Memory is highly emotional in nature, and people will frequently recall events with high emotional content, though the recall may be less accurate through highly charged emotions.

• Although people often challenge cultural or political history as distorted or rooted in myth, they generally accept the personal and familial history of others.

• Nationalism is likely promoted by historical stories, while conciliation could be promoted through personal stories.

• Differences in the content of historical information received from various sources may create an opening for greater shifting in beliefs or perceptions about a conflict.

• Among oppressed or dominated societies, the family may be the greatest source of cultural and historical information.

• Those in positions of power or those who have more to lose by revisiting the past may be more likely to suggest that the past is not important and it is best to look forward.

• People’s orientation to the past typically has roots in the loss or trauma of their own group. This focus on one’s own collective past trauma often obviates the ability to acknowledge historical losses of groups who are seen as other.

• People with greater personal experience of loss or trauma are not necessarily the members of a society who focus more on the past.

• Even when people suggest that it is best to look forward, they easily and quickly revert to past memories or injustices.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

390

TINT

Implications for Conflict Resolution As increasing attention is given to addressing historical matter in reconciling long-term conflicts (Galtung, 2001; Kelman, 1997, 2004; Lederach, 1997, 2001; Montville, 1993, 2001; Rothman, 1997), it is timely to look more closely at how awareness of these issues can be better integrated into conflict transformation practices. Walking through history, as a component of conflict transformation and reconciliation processes, does not always take into account the nuances and deep understanding of collective memory in individuals and societies in long-term conflict. A deeper awareness of the effect of these individual and collective histories is important.

Practitioners will benefit from a deeper understanding of the power of history and memory in the individuals with whom they are working.

Because much of the data suggested that participants’ views of the conflict and their amenability to flexibility around resolution were rooted heavily in their perceptions of history, understanding the historical orientation of individuals and groups is the key to understanding more about their current perspectives. We must bring to the table a lens into this domain even if the participants do not. One avenue in this pursuit is to explore these issues, directly and indirectly, with parties in conflict. Asking what the past means to them, where they learned it, how they believe it has had an impact on them, what they feel can be learned from it, and how they would like to use this knowledge and experience in the future could prove useful. Although some of this knowledge is likely to be out of the participants’ awareness, greater exploration of these issues could bring them into focus and channel their influence in more conscious and constructive directions.

Both this research and the literature point to a strong relationship between memory and identity; integrating this construct more deeply into a conflict resolution process is imperative. Kelman (2001) suggests a confrontation with history as one dimension of identity transformation in polarized conflict. The current research would suggest incorporating understanding of collective memory in an attempt to do so. This includes addressing conflicting narratives, exploring the more personal dimensions to historical remembrance, and linking emotional connectivity to history.

Furthermore, acknowledging that the conflict itself has become a deeply embedded component of identity for parties in intractable conflict is an import dimension to unlocking it. Because the research suggests a strong link between attachment to history and attachment to a nationalistic identity, exploring parties’ orientation toward the past could likely yield some CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 391

insight into how negotiable their perspectives and identities might be.

Group identity has been forged around key events in society, so a particular focus on the group perception of the defining events could prove useful. The power of individual and group identity and their connection to history and memory cannot be overstated. Therefore, any process of working with individuals and groups in long-term conflict must work with this relationship in ways that do not challenge or threaten the meaning they have for participants. Any attempt to “leave history at the door” is akin to asking people to leave their identity at the door.

In working with situations with injustice and power imbalance, acknowledging historical wrongdoings has been identified as one dimension of healing them (Lederach, 1997; Montville, 1993, 2001). The implications of this go beyond actual acknowledgment of these incidents.

In these cases, the conflict resolution process itself has the potential for perpetuating an imbalanced dynamic by focusing on issues that are priorities for some and not for others. If the dominant party in a conflict resolution process is less interested in revisiting the past, then a practitioner choosing not to do so runs the risk of restimulating the historical power imbalance and further marginalizing the subordinate group. In working with cases of protracted conflict, attending to history serves the purpose of addressing issues of inequity not only in the past but in the present process as well.

Therefore practitioners need to understand who benefits from revisiting the historical content, and who benefits from a stronger future orientation.

A significant addition to a conflict resolution process needs to be deeper learning of the other’s history from the perspective of the other. This needs to account for the asymmetry that already exists in what groups of unequal power learn about each other. As a result, increased knowledge of the more subordinate group’s history could be one way of equalizing power in these scenarios. This is not a new strategy in working with intractable conflict, and one that is not always easy to implement, but it begs for deeper understanding in practice. Within conflict resolution processes, mutual sharing of historical narratives presents a certain set of challenges because it invites the potential for increased conflict when people disagree about the facts of history. Acknowledging the differences in these perceptions of history and its inevitable subjective component is an important dimension to this process.

The challenge of conflicting narratives is such that an approach that avoids the polarizing debate over such matters is crucial. Exploring the dissonance in parties’ indoctrination is one way to break through the narrative that keeps people locked in their positions. Exploring an alternative narrative, and CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

392

TINT

opportunities for a shifting perspective reinforced by multiple sources of historical content, could be a useful strategy to employ when parties are investigating one another’s history. This can be done only with deep understanding of the identity connection to these narratives. Asking people to reconsider their stories is not an approach that will likely succeed because they are so entwined with their identity. But to ask them to consider the other’s stories more fully can help shift rigid perceptions of past, present, and future.

Another way to approach the potential difficulties that arise when parties disagree over history is to shift the focus from historical events to more personal ones. Within conflict resolution processes, therefore, it might be useful to have parties share familial stories around the past rather than historical ones. People will likely argue over more nationalistic “facts,” but there may be less dissent and challenge if people are able to talk about the past at the level of family remembrance or experience. Family stories of loss or suffering are more likely to elicit compassion or empathy from the other than are historical stories that tend to elicit challenge or defensiveness.

Additionally, if facilitators can help parties avoid the “competition of victimhoods” (Montville, 1993) replete in these scenarios, shared experiences of loss can be a foundation for common ground and mutual empathy.

Although certain conflict resolution strategies allow sharing of personal experiences, particular emphasis on sharing cultural or familial history is not necessarily a part of dialogue processes (Abu-Nimer, 1999, 2001).

Furthermore, this process of sharing more personal, and perhaps more conciliating, stories is often excluded from official negotiations. Diplomatic and political negotiation processes typically focus on the problem-solving dimension of a conflict scenario, often excluding history as a focal point of the process. The sharing of family stories is not likely to be included in official, diplomatic negotiations, but it could be a useful tool for bridging gaps in perceptions around the past, the present, and the future in other conflict resolution scenarios. Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin shared pictures of their grandchildren during the Camp David Accords, which was a key moment that moved them to vision a better future than the troubled past of their region. A shared experience of personal and collective histories could have the same impact for shifting entrenched negotiations.

In relationship to strong remembrance of culturally traumatic events, the possibility of bringing other, less extreme times and events to greater light could assist in making a shift from societal memories rooted in these polarities to ones based in an array of cultural markers. Eliciting more positive memories is not likely to undo a lifetime of socialization, CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 393

but illuminating events that have not been as highly commemorated yet reveal a differing dimension to societal history could offer meaningful insights and awareness and create some openings in entrenched processes. Many participants noted hearing of solidarity between their two cultures prior to the outbreak of the conflict; elucidating and strengthening these dimensions of historical remembrance in conflict resolution processes could also bring about a shift from a more entrenched polarity to one that allows the parties to remember the other in a different light. The ability to challenge the one-dimensional, demonized view of the other that so often exists in intractable conflict is a vital component of bringing people closer to reconciliation.

If history is regarded as a recall of facts, then the enduring power of emotions and their impact on group members could be overlooked in working with people from conflicted societies. The emotional content within a conflict resolution process is sometimes regarded as something to be managed rather than embraced (Fisher, Ury, Patton, 1991; Bazerman and Neale, 1992). Given the richness of emotional material that emerged from this research, attending more deliberately to the depth of collective sorrow, sadness, anger, fear, and hatred that are evident in this and other protracted conflicts is an important way of attending to memory.

Montville (1991, 1993) talks about the inability to mourn as one dimension to escalation of conflict. Others suggest that a sense of alienation and shame in protracted conflict is directly related to unexpressed emotion about historical events (Retzinger and Scheff, 2000). It seems imperative that permitting the depth of mourning—as far back in history as necessary for the parties—is a crucial component of a conflict resolution process dealing with histories of long-standing loss and suffering.

In many scenarios, there is often reluctance to do just this. This reluctance to more deeply explore the emotional history in conflict scenarios may be one way of avoiding opening old wounds; there is often fear of a process developing into a regressive emotional spiral that might become counterproductive to finding future-oriented solutions. From the current research, however, it appears that participants are living with the past in myriad ways that are very much alive, whether directly elicited or not. Although it would likely vary across people and circumstances, because emotional content is already highly accessible, it seems important to provide a constructive forum rather than try to relegate it to the sidelines. Acknowledging the historical emotional content with an understanding of how parties might have internalized a traumatic cultural history can permit additional insight in CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

394

TINT

working with individuals and groups in long-term conflict. Furthermore, awareness of the issues related to frequency and accuracy of recall around highly charged emotional events could also be key parts of processing historical content in conflict transformation processes.

In considering this research as it relates to more effectively integrated constructs of memory into conflict resolution practice, it seems worthwhile to draw from reconciliation literature (Bloomfield, 2001; Galtung, 2001; Kriesberg, 2001, 2004; Lederach, 1997, 2001) to reinforce the importance of acknowledgment, reparations, apology, forgiveness, and justice as elements of successful reconciliation. These principles can be applied in a variety of scenarios—mediation, small-scale conflict resolution processes, large-scale conflicts—that are affected by historical material. Furthermore, considering the “ripeness” (Coleman and others, 2008; Zartman, 2001) of a conflict scenario is another basis by which to evaluate integration of historical material into practice. There may be opportune times and less opportune times in which to open the doors to memories as a basis for moving through conflict.

Through further research into this area, and practitioner experience, we can more effectively determine where those doors and windows are.

Recommendations for Conflict Resolution Practice In light of the research presented and the ensuing discussion, I offer a number of recommendations for practitioners to more deeply integrate constructs of history and memory into their practice: • Interventionists need to be aware of the potential impact that individual or collective memories may have on a scenario even when the participants themselves are not.

• Educating parties about the frequent nature of conflicting memories in long-term conflict can help normalize the phenomenon and soften the power of this dimension to the conflict.

• Understanding the important connection between memory and identity is crucial for conflict resolution practitioners.

• Directly or indirectly exploring parties’ experience with history and memory may yield important information otherwise ignored.

• It will likely be unproductive to have parties discuss or argue about historical facts on which they differ; this can cause deeper polarization.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 395

• Asking parties to share memories related to personal and familial history could bring greater empathy and conciliation than recalling political history.

• Asking people to look to the future when they are oriented to the past can elicit resistance, strengthen that orientation, and cause deeper entrenchment in the conflict.

• Because people are often stuck in memories of loss and victimization, it can be helpful to elicit other, more positive memories that might also exist in the situation.

• Giving greater space for the strong emotions connected with historical material is a key dimension to unlocking entrenched conflict.

• A future orientation may inadvertently reinforce power inequities by supporting those privileged by looking forward.

• Acknowledging and creating space for the oppressed or injured party’s need to revisit the past in a conflict resolution process can be one way to address the existence of power imbalance.

• Even in small-scale conflicts, the reconciliation principles of fully accounting for and addressing the past can anchor a successful mediation or conflict resolution process.

• As different cultural groups may have different values and orientations to the past, it is important for practitioners to consider cultural elements in determining their emphases or intervention strategies in this regard.

Conclusion This study has explored the role of memory as a factor in intractable conflict, an important subject of inquiry not fully realized in the field of conflict resolution. Although this article focuses primarily on memory within largerscale societies, its implications are well considered within the context of working with individuals and within smaller contexts of long-term, protracted conflict. Much of the study reveals that for many of the participants the past, present, and future merged into a reality that was not so easily separated. This reflects the indigenous philosophy that considers a situation to be connected to seven generations back and seven generations forward, and it offers a useful foundation on which to build. We must have a deeper understanding of the power of memory and of the intersecting spheres of temporal domains. As this aspect of people’s experience becomes more CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

396

TINT

available for consideration, it will hopefully emerge from the backdrop of conflict resolution processes and become a meaningful dimension to this work. In revisiting Lederach’s paradox of addressing the challenges of the past (1997, 2001) while simultaneously visioning a different future, we benefit from a deeper understanding of how to do so. With this greater understanding of the relationship between memory and conflict, new directions for conflict research are implicit. Although memory is a powerful force, it can be mobilized toward greater understanding and healing between individuals and groups.

References Abu-Nimer, M. Dialogue, Conflict Resolution and Change: Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.

Abu-Nimer, M. “Education for Co-existence in Israel: Potential and Challenges.”

In M. Abu-Nimer (ed.), Reconciliation, Justice and Co-existence. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2001.

Baker Miller, J. “Domination and Subordination.” In P. Rothenberg (ed.), Race, Class & Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

Bar-Tal, D., and Bennink, G. “The Nature of Reconciliation as an Outcome and as a Process.” In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (ed.), From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bazerman, M., and Neale, M. Negotiating Rationally. New York: Free Press, 1992.

Bloomfield, D. “Reconciliation: An Introduction.” In D. Bloomfield, T. Barnes, and L. Huyse (eds.), Reconciliation After Violent Conflict: A Handbook. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2001.

Charmaz, K. “Grounded Theory.” In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), The American Tradition in Qualitative Research, Vol. 2. London: Sage, 2001.

Charmaz, K. “Qualitative Interviewing and Grounded Theory Analysis.” In J. Gubrium and J. Holstein (eds.), Handbook of Interview Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2002.

Coleman, P., and others. “Reconstructing Ripeness II: Models and Methods for Fostering Constructive Stakeholder Engagement Across Protracted Divides.”

Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 2008, 26(1), 43–69.

Coleman, P. T. “Intractable Conflict.” In M. Deutsch and P. T. Coleman (eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.

Coleman, P. T. “Characteristics of Protracted, Intractable Conflict: Toward the Development of a Meta-Framework—I.” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2003, 9(1), 1–37.

Conway, M. “The Inventory of Experience: Memory and Identity.” In J. Pennebaker, D. Paez, and B. Rime (eds.), Collective Memory of Political Events. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1997.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 397

Coser, L. (ed.). On Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Creswell, J.W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.

Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Process. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1973.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B. Getting to Yes. New York: Penguin Books, 1991.

Galtung, J. “After Violence, Reconstruction, Reconciliation, and Resolution: Coping with Visible and Invisible Effects of War and Violence.” In M. Abu-Nimer (ed.), Reconciliation, Justice and Co-existence. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2001.

Gergen, K., and Gergen, M. “Qualitative Inquiry: Tensions and Transformations.” In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2000.

Gergen, K. J. “The Social Constructionist Movement in Modern Psychology.”

American Psychologist, 1985, 40, 266–275.

Halabi, R. Israeli and Palestinian Identities in Dialogue. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2000.

Halbwachs, M. The Collective Memory. New York: Harper and Row, 1950/1980.

Hofman, J. “Social Identity and Intergroup Conflict: An Israeli View.” In W. Stroebe, A. Kruglanski, D. Bar-Tal, and M. Hewstone (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1988.

Hutton, P. History as an Art of Memory. New Hampshire: University Press of New England, 1993.

Kelman, H. C. “Social Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict.”

In W. Zartman and L. Rasmussen (eds.), Peacemaking in International Conflict. Washington, D.C.: USIP Press, 1997.

Kelman, H. C. “The Role of National Identity in Conflict Resolution: Experiences from Israeli-Palestinian Problem-Solving Workshops.” In R. D. Ashmore, L. Jussim, and D. Wilder (eds.), Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Kelman, H. C. “Reconciliation as Identity Change.” In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (ed.), From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Kriesberg, L. “Changing Forms of Coexistence.” In M. Abu-Nimer (ed.), Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence: Theory and Practice. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2001.

Kriesberg, L. “Comparing Reconciliation Actions Within and Between Countries.” In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (ed.), From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Kriesberg, L. Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007.

Lederach, J. P. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies.

Washington, D.C.: USIP Press, 1997.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

398

TINT

Lederach, J. P. “Five Qualities of Practice in Support of Reconciliation Processes.”

In R. Helmick and R. Petersen (eds.), Forgiveness and Reconciliation. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2001.

Montville, J. Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies. New York: Lexington Books, 1991.

Montville, J. “The Healing Function in Political Conflict Resolution.” In D. Sandole and H. van der Merwe (eds.), Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1993.

Montville, J. “Justice and the Burdens of History.” In M. Abu-Nimer (ed.), Reconciliation, Justice and Co-existence. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2001.

Moore, C. The Mediation Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Morse, J. M. The Significance of Saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 1995, 5, 147–149.

Neal, A. G. National Trauma and Collective Memory. New York: Sharpe, 1998.

Neuliep, J. Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2009.

Patton, M. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2002.

Pennebaker, J., Paez, D., and Rime, B. Collective Memory of Political Events. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1997.

Putnam, L., and Wondelleck, J. “Intractability: Definitions, Dimensions, and Distinctions.” In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, and M. Elliott (eds.), Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Disputes. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2003.

Retzinger, S., and Scheff, T. “Emotion, Alienation, and Narratives: Resolving Intractable Conflict.” Mediation Quarterly, 2000, 18(1), 71–85.

Rose, N. “Identity, Genealogy, History.” In S. Hall and P. Du Gay (eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage, 1996.

Rothman, J. Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations and Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.

Rouhana, N., and Bar-Tal, D. “Psychological Dimensions of Intractable Conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian Case.” American Psychologist, 1998, 53, 761–770.

Rouhana, N., and Korper, S. “Dealing with Power Asymmetry: Dilemmas of Intervention in Asymmetrical Intergroup Conflict.” Negotiation Journal, 1996, 12, 315–328.

Schwandt, T. “Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry.” In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2000.

Schwartz, B. “The Social Context of Commemoration: A Study in Collective Memory.” Social Forces, 1982, 61(2), 374–402.

Shipler, D. Arab and Jew. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. “Grounded Theory Methodology.” In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq

History, Memory, and Conflict Resolution 399

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. “Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview.” In A. Bryman and R. Burgess (eds.), Qualitative Research, Vol. 3. London: Sage, 1999.

Tint, B. “History, Memory and Intractable Conflict.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 2010, 27(3), 239–256.

Volkan, V. “Intergenerational Transmission and ‘Chosen’ Traumas: A Link Between the Psychology of the Individual and That of the Ethnic Group.”

In L. Rangell and R. Moses-Hrushovski (eds.), Psychoanalysis at the Political Border. Madison, Wis.: International Universities Press, 1996.

Volkan, V. Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997.

Zartman, W. “The Timing of Peace Initiatives: Hurting Stalemates and Ripe Moments.” Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 2001, 1, 8–18.

Zerubavel, Y. Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Barbara Tint is the director of international and intercultural conflict resolution at Portland State University, Oregon. She also works as a consultant, trainer, and facilitator in areas of dialogue and postconflict reconciliation in a variety of domestic and international arenas.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/crq