Sociopsychological analysis of conflict-supporting narratives

Introduction

Intergroup conflicts typically involve conflict-supporting narratives ¹ that are used by the involved parties. These narratives satisfy the needs of the rivals for justification and explanation of the events of the conflicts in which they take part (László, 2008). The narratives are especially important in intractable conflicts, because these conflicts involve human losses and suffering that lead unavoidably to chronic stress and distress. In these contexts, conflict-supporting narratives play a major role not only in the eruption of conflicts, but especially in their persistence – as well as in the use of violent means that often violate moral codes of conduct, and in the difficulty in resolving them peacefully. They become epistemic ideological foundations that serve as a prism through which society members process information and thus support continuation of the conflict (Bar-Tal, 2013; Bar-Tal, Halperin & Oren, 2010). Because the societies ² in conflict typically develop opposing conflict-supporting narratives, and because additional counter-narratives may appear in each society, groups initially try to maintain the dominance of their own narratives among the in-group members and also make efforts to persuade other groups of their narratives’ truthfulness.

Several empirical studies focus on the destructive impacts of conflict-supporting narratives: Božic-Roberson (2004) shows how the Serbs’ negative narratives regarding the Croatians and the Bosnians that were advocated by the Serb leader Slobodan Milošević in the 1990s contributed to the eruption of bloodshed in the Balkans; Russell (2005) reveals how similar narratives held by the Russians regarding the Chechens contributed to the eruption of the two Russia–Chechnya wars in the 1990s; Staub (2011) presents the negative narratives adopted by the Hutus regarding the Tutsis that led the former to conduct a genocide among the latter; and Papadakis, Peristianis & Welz (2006) describe the mutually held negative narratives of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots that prevent the resolution of their conflict. Moreover, as described below, previous studies address some aspects of narratives in general and those of conflicts in particular. Nonetheless, these aspects are scattered separately in different studies (for instance, addressing censorship only). Moreover, many of these studies are empirical and thus do not offer an all-inclusive conception.

In view of the pivotal role of conflict-supportive narratives, the present article makes four distinctive contributions to their understanding in the attempt to provide a comprehensive, integrated, and holistic conceptual framework. First, it clarifies the nature of the conflict-supportive narratives in times of conflict, particularly their unique themes and the functions they fulfill. Second, it describes the methods that are used in their construction. Third, it examines the practices that are used in efforts to preserve a narrative’s dominance within the society that formed it and also in the international community. Finally, it provides a number of ideas about changing narratives within the framework of a peacebuilding process and constructing new peace-supporting narratives.

Narratives

The concept ‘narrative’ refers to a story about an event or events that has a plot with a clear starting point and endpoint, providing sequential and causal coherence about the world and/or a group’s experience (e.g. Bruner, 1990; László, 2008). Some scholars suggest that this concept represents an ideal root metaphor for political psychology in its ability to bridge ‘levels of analysis in precisely the manner political psychologists have advocated since the emergence of the field’ (Hammack & Pilecki, 2012: 95). Given this framework, narratives are analyzed on two levels. On the individual level, they are life stories that provide a sense of meaning, coherence, and purpose to the course of a person’s life (e.g. McAdams, 2006). On the collective level, narratives are ‘social constructions that coherently interrelate a sequence of historical and current events; they are accounts of a community’s collective experiences, embodied in its belief system and represent the collective’s symbolically constructed shared identity’ (Bruner, 1990: 76). Bekerman & Zembylas (2010, 2011) added an emotional element to narratives, suggesting that historical collective narratives are embedded in particular emotional discourses about collective (national) belonging and otherness. They serve specific purposes in the process of creating and negotiating reality and making individuals into socially and culturally specific persons engaged in complex webs of power relations. In this way society members, investing strong emotions to particular historical narratives with which they identify, become entrenched in them, and thus changing the narratives is a very difficult challenge. As a complementary approach, Hammack focused on the theoretical basis of narrative as linked to language, power, and social practice (Hammack, 2008, 2011a; Hammack & Pilecki, 2012). In his view narrative is the central way in which individuals use language to mediate their experiences of the material world. In conflict settings individuals experience narrative in more compulsory ways because of the existential insecurity of the group (Hammack, 2010, 2011a). What bridges the two levels of narrative is narrative engagement, which refers to how individuals navigate among different collective narratives and the extent to which individuals accept collective narratives or challenge them (Hammack, 2010, 2011a; Hammack & Pilecki, 2012).

Our interest concerns mainly the collective level, but we will also refer at times to the way individuals deal with conflict-supportive narratives. Among the lines of research about collective narratives, the most relevant are studies of collective memory (Wertsch, 2002), also defined as social representations of the past (Liu & Hilton, 2005). In both fields – collective memory and social representations – scholars claim that events in the past and present are often narrated in such ways that promote maintenance of the status quo and/or justify the parties’ contentions (Buckley-Zistel, 2009; Liu & Hilton, 2005). For example, Zerubavel (2003) shows how strategies in collective narrative construction, such as structure of time sequence (e.g. linear, circular, zigzag), separation of historical periods from one another, and presentation of historical beginnings, provide meanings to the past that legitimate present claims and acts, such as the establishment of territorial rights.

Studies of collective memory and social representations present a picture of multiple collective storylines that circulate in a society and compete for dominance. Moscovici’s (1988) studies of social representations refer to master narratives that are ‘dominant scripts which can be identified in cultural products and discourse’ (e.g. media, literature, textbooks); within this context, Moscovici also alludes to hegemonic narratives that are consensual throughout society. These scripts contain ‘collective storylines that range from a group’s history to notions of what it means to inhabit a particular social category’ (Hammack, 2010: 178). They are perceived as compulsory because individuals need to appropriate them into their personal narrative in order to qualify as society members (Hammack, 2011b). Previous studies supporting this line of inquiry looked into the assemblage of specific master narratives in school textbooks, history books (Buckley-Zistel, 2009), leaders’ speeches (Reicher & Hopkins, 1996), and reports by committee investigators (Bogen & Lynch, 1989). Of special importance for the present article are narratives that support continuations of intractable conflicts, because they strongly influence the societies involved in them (Auerbach, 2010; Bar-Tal, 2013).

According to Bar-On, these narratives are building blocks of social identity. They are constructed against the other, and this positioning allows the definition of the collective. The negation of the other allows construction of a monolithic narrative, which excludes the other, including its narrative, and enables performance of immoral deeds. In the context of a violent conflict the rivals focus in their narratives on their traumatic experience and feelings of victimhood. This situation leads to a collision between the rivals’ narratives. Only a dialogue between the narratives can lead to new understanding of the own narrative, legitimization of the other group, and development of empathy (Bar-On, 1996, 2008).

In this line of research studies have identified contradictory narratives between societies engaged in intractable conflicts (e.g. Papadakis, Peristianis & Welz, 2006, in the case of Greek and Turkish Cypriot narratives; and Adwan, Bar-On & Naveh, 2012, regarding Israeli and Palestinian narratives). Some studies have focused on specific topics that the narratives emphasize, such as collective victimhood among a narrative’s adherents (e.g. De Mel, 2007; Hadjipavlou, 2007). Also the struggle over opposing narratives within a society was noted mostly in the context of censorship (see review in De Baets, 2002). However, little work regarding the way two narratives of societies involved in intractable conflict compete in the international community has been done (e.g. Noor et al., 2012, wrote on competition between rival groups’ narratives about presenting the in-group as the sole victim of the conflict). This topic is also partially covered in the literature about propaganda and public diplomacy, but these studies tend to focus on images of one’s own society and its rivals rather than on narratives (O’Loughlin, 2011). For instance, O’Loughlin (2011) found that the impact of images of conflict on a target audience depends on the broader historical narratives that form the context for such images.

In sum, the literature addresses various aspects of narratives in general, including those related to conflict situations. Nonetheless, as noted, an inclusive analysis is needed of the latter narratives that focuses on their contents, functions, construction, processes of change, and struggles over their dominance. Below we provide several classifications regarding themes of conflict-supportive narratives and methods used in the construction of conflict-supportive narratives and in the struggles for their dominance. These categorizations are based on decades of extensive research of the Arab–Israeli conflict and intimate familiarity with the theoretical and empirical literature regarding this conflict and other intractable conflicts, such as those in Northern Ireland and Cyprus (see Bar-Tal, 2007b, 2013). These lists, which offer an organization of practices in settings of intractable conflicts, may not be exhaustive. They develop frameworks that can serve as bases for constructing observations in different conflicts and also suggest an opportunity to validate them.

The content of conflict-supportive narratives

In every intractable conflict the rivals construct conflict-supporting master collective narratives that focus on the conflict’s entirety and that often become dominant. The narratives form a collective self-presentation and describe the causes of the conflict, its nature, the image of the rival, the conditions needed to win the conflict, and more. In addition to this general master narrative, there are also more specific narratives that concern major events in the conflict, such as wars, and mini narratives that refer to specific incidents, such as a battle and even particular events within a battle, as well as personalities involved (Auerbach, 2010).

A master conflict-supportive narrative consists of two major kinds of narrative that pertain to the continuum of time from past through present and into the future (Bar-Tal, 2007a, 2013). ‘Collective memory’ refers to the narrative about a conflict’s eruption and its course, providing a coherent and meaningful picture of the past (Paez & Liu, 2011). ‘Ethos of conflict’ as a narrative defines the particular dominant orientation of a society, which illuminates the present state of affairs and conditions and sets a direction as well as goals for the future (Bar-Tal, 2007a, 2013; Oren, 2009).

Both collective memory and ethos of conflict supply the contents of the culture of conflict that evolves within each group of rivals (Bar-Tal, 2013). Nevertheless, we recognize that these societies differ in terms of the degree of dominance of an identified master narrative, and that the characteristics of a narrative change with time. In some societies the conflict-supportive narrative is dominant at certain times – that is, widely shared and reflected in various societal, political, and cultural institutions and products. In other societies it may be less dominant, competing with various counter-narratives that may even reject the continuation of the conflict. Nevertheless, at the climax of an intractable conflict, the master conflict-supportive narrative, expressed in collective memory and the ethos, frequently achieves prominence within rival societies. This narrative often includes some combination of the following eight common themes, while one or more of these themes may appear in specific narratives (Bar-Tal, 1998, 2007a, 2013). The list of themes is based on insights drawn mainly from theoretical and empirical literature about several intractable conflicts and does not necessarily describe all actual conflicts.

First, the master narrative justifies involvement in the conflict and the course of its development while at the same time discrediting the goals of the other side as unjustified and unreasonable. Secondly, it delineates the dangers that the conflict constitutes to the society – threats to the physical existence of the in-group and to its cherished values, identity, and territory (e.g. Bar-Tal, Jacobson & Klieman, 1998). Thirdly, it delegitimizes the opponent. ³ In essence, delegitimization denies the adversary’s humanity and serves as a psychological permit to harm the rival group (Opotow, 1990). Fourth, in contrast to that of the opponent, the master narrative presents a glorified image of the in-group (e.g. Baumeister & Hastings, 1997). Fifth, it presents the in-group as the sole victim of the conflict and of the opponent (Bar-Tal et al., 2009). Sixth, it encourages patriotism, which is essential in order to mobilize people for achieving its group goals, especially for violent confrontations with the rival – including readiness to make the ultimate sacrifice, life. Seventh, it emphasizes the importance of maintaining unity, by ignoring internal discords and disagreements, in the face of an external threat. The eighth and final theme consists of the desire to live in peace, as the conflict situation inflicts suffering and losses.

Indeed, these major themes were found to be dominant in the cultures of many societies engaged in intractable conflict, such as among Serbs, Kosovars, Albanians, Croats, and Bosnians (MacDonald, 2002), Hutus in Rwanda (Slocum-Bradley, 2008), Greek and Turkish Cypriots (Hadjipavlou, 2007), and Israeli Jews (Bar-Tal, 2007b; Oren, 2009).

The functions of conflict-supportive narratives

Specific conflict-supportive and master narratives as described above play a major role in helping society members on both individual and collective levels to adapt to the harsh, stressful, and demanding conditions of the intractable conflict. They fulfill the epistemic function of illuminating the conflict situation, which is characterized by uncertainty, stress, and unpredictability (Burton, 1990). They also serve to justify the negative acts of the in-group towards its enemy, including violence against humans and destruction of property (Apter, 1997). Additionally, the narratives prepare the society for threatening and violent acts by the enemy as well as for the difficult life conditions that may ensue. They attune the society to information that signals potential harm and continuing violent confrontations, allowing psychological preparations for lasting conflict and immunization against negative experiences (e.g. Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). By doing so, the narratives function as a motivating force for unity, solidarity, mobilization, and readiness for sacrifice on behalf of the group (Bar-Tal & Staub, 1997). This is especially important for a society that lacks formal institutions for mobilization, as is the case for Tamils, Chechens, and Palestinians (Hammack, 2010). They also enable the maintenance of positive personal and social identities with the sense of worthiness, esteem, and integrity that every group strives to preserve on both individual and collective levels (Leary, 2007). Often, the narratives differentiate between the in-group and the rival, imparting a sense of superiority to the in-group (Pronin, Gilovich & Ross, 2004). Finally, these narratives, as will later be demonstrated, serve the important function of providing positive self-presentation and victimhood status before the international community. Despite all of these functions, it should be noted that when windows of opportunities open for resolving these intractable conflicts peacefully, the same narratives become stubborn barriers to the peacemaking process (Bar-Tal & Halperin, 2011).

Construction of the conflict-supportive narratives

The above listed roles of primary themes indicate that the basic function of the narratives is not to provide the most valid and accurate account of reality. Rather, they aim to serve the crucial needs that must be satisfied if societies are to meet the challenges imposed on them by conflicts. In order to address these challenges, conflict-supporting narratives are constructed selectively, simplistically, with biases and distortion – and through various methods, some of which are described below (Auerbach, 2010; Baumeister & Hastings, 1997). ⁴ These methods can be used by both parties in symmetrical and asymmetrical conflicts. The first method focuses on the sources used, the next five concern the contents of the narratives, and the last method refers to the use of language.

The struggles over the dominance of the conflict-supportive narrative

The conceptual framework presented above for conflict-supportive narratives indicates that they are of great importance for the collectives. Thus, societies involved in a conflict engage in fierce struggles in order to instill their conflict-supportive narrative and then to maintain its dominance.

Two major types of campaigns are carried out against counter-narratives. The first type of struggle is intrasocietal, where the battle is over maintaining the dominance of the conflict-supportive narrative among society members (Dixon, 2010; Paez & Liu, 2011). The second campaign is carried out within the international community and aims to persuade relevant third parties that the conflict-supportive narrative of the given in-group is truthful. Both types of struggle may take place simultaneously and use similar methods to support the narratives. The use of the various practices depends on the political, economic, and military power of each side, and especially on having institutionalized means, such as a state may have, to carry them out.

Changing narratives in the peacebuilding process

One of the core elements in the process of peacebuilding ⁵ is weakening the adherence of the rivals to the conflict-supportive narratives and introducing new ideas, beliefs, and attitudes that eventually develop into new peace-supportive narratives (while increasing the adherence to these latter narratives) ⁶ (Clements, 2012). Construction of new peace-supporting narratives that are shared by at least a majority of society members and the elite often promotes the resolution of conflicts, reconciliation, and the establishment of lasting peace (Staub, 2011). In this section we will briefly address the main process of narratives change and the conditions that facilitate such a change, discussing its role in peacebuilding.

This process begins when the parties in conflict begin to change their beliefs, attitudes, goals, motivations, and emotions about the conflict, about each other, and about future relations – first with attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully and in later phases of the process, with efforts at reconciliation as well. The presentation of new beliefs, which revolve around changing goals, plans, information, images, arguments, justifications, and other considerations, eventually crystallize into coherent new counter-narratives. Such counter-narratives may present the rival in a legitimizing, humanizing, and personalizing way – and as a victim that suffers during the conflict (Bar-Tal & Teichman, 2005). The in-group is conversely presented in a less positive and glorifying light and as a group responsible for misdeeds during the conflict.

On the personal level, this process involves reduced support and even rejection of the master conflict-supportive narrative by an individual, and subsequently construction of an alternative, peace-supporting narrative (Hammack, 2010). As this process grows in substance and strength, the result is to weaken the adherence of the society to the conflict-supportive narratives and to strengthen the support of the peacebuilding process, with the construction of new narratives. On the collective level, the process of changing conflict-supportive narratives results in changes in the content of narratives as they appear in academic institutions, mass media, and cultural products such as literature, films or commemorative ceremonies. The latter informal process sometimes leads to the institutionalization of the new master narrative supporting the peace process. Institutionalization signals that formal institutions of the society – such as governmental information centers and educational systems, through textbooks – have joined the efforts to change the narratives. All of these processes may lead eventually to a change in the ethos of conflict and in the collective memory of conflict in a society, with ensuing construction of new, revised parts of collective memory and of an ethos of peace.

It is evident that the process of changing conflict-supporting narratives, while being an essential component of the peacebuilding process, is difficult, complex, gradual, and nonlinear, because these narratives were maintained and imparted continuously and intensively to society members (Oren, 2009). After the peaceful settlement of a conflict, the process requires participation of the formal institutions, with plans, policies, and actions. This needs to be coordinated with a combination of bottom-up programs and top-down policy-based governmental activities (Nadler, Malloy & Fisher, 2008).

A bottom-up process often begins with small groups and civil organizations that resist the official conflict-supportive narrative, construct new peace-supporting narratives, and act to disseminate them (or such peace narratives as may already exist) among society members and especially among its leaders. The process typically requires legitimization and institutionalization of the new peace-oriented narratives (Bar-Tal, 2013). For example, both in North Ireland and in South Africa intense activities of NGOs and other groups that advocated peace preceded the major official agreements to settle these conflicts (Gidron, Katz & Hasenfeld, 2002). Yet this process can also include a top-down approach, when the leadership constructs and disseminates a counter-narrative. The Rwandan government, for instance, in pursuing reconciliation after the 1994 genocide, promoted a new narrative about the history of Rwanda claiming that ethnicity did not exist in Rwanda prior to the arrival of the colonialists. This narrative was disseminated to the public in history books and education camps through which a considerably large portion of the society had to pass. In both directions of the process, the key question concerned the extent of internalization of the advocated change among society members and especially among its leaders.

Numerous internal and external factors may facilitate the process of changing conflict-supporting narratives. These factors can be classified into categories; we suggest at least the following five: (1) Nature of the conflict, which includes such characteristics as its level of de-escalation and the rivals’ adherence to their own narratives and readiness to change them; (2) Characteristics of the given society, such as its levels of homogeneity, political tolerance, freedom of expression, and dominance by conflict-supporting factions; (3) Nature of the narrative, including its level of centrality, society members’ degree of confidence in it, and the extent of difference between the conflict-supportive and peace-supportive narratives; (4) The core institutions that deal with the narrative change (e.g. the Ministry of Education and the media), including such factors as their levels of formality and openness to change; (5) The international context, consisting of such factors as the international status of the given society and the level of interest in resolving the conflict among the international community. Support for the effects of the noted factors was drawn from various studies (e.g. Fitzduff, 2002; Nadler, Malloy & Fisher, 2008; Teitel, 2000).

Nevertheless it is important to note that eventually the disseminated peace-supportive narratives must be based on real and experienced changes in the living conditions of individuals and their society, as well as on acts that address and directly rectify the immoral behavior practiced by the rivals before the conflict erupted and during its course (Fitzduff, 2002; Teitel, 2000). In addition, attempts to change the conflict-supporting narratives sometimes rely on peace education that may be launched even before the conflict resolution process begins (e.g. Beckerman & Zembylas, 2009; Salomon, 2004). An example of the latter is the Northern Ireland program, Education for Mutual Understanding (EMU), which was developed in 1990 (before the Good Friday Agreement of 1998), aimed at promoting values associated with better community relations. This program tried to help young people learn to appreciate other groups and to show them nonviolent ways to deal with conflict (Gallagher, 2010). Another school project, PRIME, promotes familiarity with the rival’s narrative in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (Adwan & Bar-On, 2004).

While the efforts to change conflict-supportive narratives often start at early stages of the conflict before its resolution, such changes are especially important as part of a reconciliation process. In fact, some scholars like Auerbach (2009) refer to the change of narratives as an integral part of the reconciliation process and claim that reconciliation will not be achieved without a change in the conflict-supportive narratives of the rivals. An important step towards reconciliation is an acceptance of the legitimacy of the rival perspective (even if not adopting it or completely giving up one’s own narrative). This acceptance may lead to the recognition that the narrative of the in-group, like that of the rival, is selective, biased, and distorted to some degree. This process requires inclusion of events and facts that were omitted from the in-group conflict-supportive narratives, illuminating the events from different perspectives, providing a more balanced interpretation of various events and processes of the past and even assuming responsibility for past misdeeds. In some cases, this process may lead to incorporation of parts of the other’s narrative into the in-group’s own narrative (Barkan, 2000; Borer, 2006).

One way to change old conflict-supportive narratives as part of the reconciliation process is through truth commissions (Hayner, 2001), such as South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), when individuals from all sides of the former conflict ‘come together in a communal activity of telling and listening to stories of one another; and through such a process the stories of individuals become transformed into threads of a new national narrative’ (Andrews, 2003: 45–46). Another way to address the clash between conflict-supportive narratives as part of a reconciliation process is found in the establishment of a shared history book that is widely used by all sides. Indeed, most successful attempts to write a joint history book occur at later stages of reconciliation. An example of this can be found in history books that were written by French and German historians, which have been published in both languages and are used in high school history classes in both countries (Gruber, 2006). A similar project was conducted in the late 1990s by the Czech Republic and Germany (Kopstein, 1997).

It is important to note that there are problems with many of the efforts to construct a new narrative to replace the conflict-supportive narratives, whether it is done via truth commissions or shared history books. Some groups may feel that the shared narrative presents a ‘victor’s justice’ when the stronger side dictates the narrative, while others may feel that the new narrative is too forgiving of past wrongs (Andrews, 2003). In addition, Leach, Zeineddine & Čehajić-Clancy (2013) show that acceptance of a group’s own past wrongdoing tends to occur only when the violence took place in the distant past. We share the view of those scholars of reconciliation who believe that an attempt, even a partial one, to bridge the gap between opposing conflict-supportive narratives is a goal that reconciliation practitioners should try to achieve.

Conclusions

This article presents a comprehensive conceptual framework that sheds light on the content, functions, and construction of conflict-supportive narratives, as well as on the struggle over their dominance. These narratives are powerful socio-political-psychological tools that provide prisms through which reality is viewed; that serve as foundations for socializing new generations; and that guide policies, actions, and practices of societies involved in intractable conflict. While these narratives can motivate mobilization and help a society to cope with the stressful situation of conflict, they also sometimes cover up instances of injustice and immorality such as exploitation, discrimination, and occupation – which may have led to the conflict in the first place for the stronger party and to exposure of the other side as the weaker one.

Notwithstanding the pervasiveness and durability of the conflict-supporting narratives, they can be changed in a process of reconciliation. As part of this process a new worldview is established, one that is functional for these new relationships and that serves as a stable foundation for the cooperative and friendly acts that characterize them. This is a complex process; it goes beyond the scope of formal conflict resolution and even peacemaking to profound societal change in the realms of culture and identity.

We suggest that future research should address the topics discussed in this article, since we are aware that the analysis provided here does not apply to all conflicts and rivals. Thus, future research should focus on the content, functions, and construction of conflict-supportive narratives as well as on struggles over their dominance, internally and externally. In addition, research should address questions that can illuminate pathways and conditions for enabling construction of new, peace-supportive narratives, which can serve as foundations for cultures of peace. These lines of research, using various methodologies, can elucidate the roles of leaders, educational systems, publishers, academia, and the mass media in changing conflict-supportive narratives and forming peace-supportive ones. It is important to study these topics since this line of research can lead to reducing the impact of conflict-supportive narratives and to promotion of peace-supportive narratives along with their wide dissemination within societies. All of this increases the likelihood of the peaceful resolution of intractable conflicts and eventual reconciliation between bitter rivals.