Breaking the Conflict Cycle,Building Peaceful Communities: Participatory Photography and Storytelling With African Diasporas in Sydney

Abstract

Even after resettling in a new country, the trauma and resentment caused by the conflict experienced in their homeland are passed on from generation to generation among diaspora communities. One of the factors that perpetuate the conflict in their new reality is the ethnic separation that continues to be upheld and reinforced, from parents to children. This article discusses the experience of a participatory photography project that brought together young people from the Congolese, Rwandan, Burundian, and Ugandan communities living in Sydney (Australia), whose lives are still impacted by the legacy of the conflicts that have been ravaging the African Great Lakes region. This initiative, which wanted to provide a space to encourage communication between different groups and enable the promotion of peace between communities starting from the youth, is analyzed here, and reflections are offered on the use of this method with diaspora groups.

Keywords

diaspora young people peacebuilding participatory photography diasporic media

Introduction

This article discusses the experience of a participatory photography project that brought together young people from the Congolese, Rwandan, Burundian, and Ugandan communities living in Sydney, whose lives are still impacted by the legacy of the conflicts that have been ravaging the African Great Lakes region. Through a series of targeted exercises, the youth learned basic digital camera skills and worked on the development of stories connected to the theme of peace through the use of photographs. The participatory element of this project allowed them to make decisions over the images they wanted to capture, their meaning, and composition. The initiative wanted to provide a space to encourage communication between different groups who either come from or are indirectly affected by a reality of violent conflict, in the hope of creating a more balanced understanding of both past and present in relation to the conflict, and to enable the promotion of peace between communities starting from the youth.

The article begins with an overview of the literature, bringing together the work of scholars who have examined the context of conflict-generated diaspora; the role of this diaspora, both in conflict and in peacebuilding; and the uses made of diasporic media. It then goes on to provide the main theoretical and contextual notions that are helpful to understand the framework in which the participatory photography project was developed and implemented. The subsequent section provides an analysis of the project through a presentation of some of the activities that were implemented, the photos and stories produced, participants’ reactions, and accompanying reflections from the facilitator (author of this article).

The ensuing discussion, which also sheds light on the strengths and limitations of the project and offers feedback received by participants, is helpful in reconnecting the existing literature with this new experience. Initiatives that encourage the participation of young members of different diasporas are important to understand both their own point of view on conflict-related issues and to provide an opportunity to understand that of others. While initiatives that address fragmentation in diaspora exist, they mostly focus on the divisions within the same diaspora community and seldom make use of communication technology. Initial reflections on alternative channels for dialogue involving the media emerge from this work.

The State of the Literature on Media, Conflict, and Diaspora

Smith (2017) states that diaspora does not consist merely of groups of individuals from a scattered population, but it is rather a “community-building process with two major factors: 1. self-identification of belonging to a diaspora, and 2. interconnection between local, origin, and diaspora localities” (p. 268). Bush (2008) adds that what members of a diaspora share is “a complex set of attachment to a perceived place of origin in which [they are] not resident” (p. 194). Diasporas therefore attach stronger significance on their homeland rather than on their hostland, and it is what differentiates them from migrants (Lyons, 2006, cited in Bush, 2008, p. 194).

Some have spoken of the progression toward what we can regard as a globalized world, in which territories are no longer mapped based on a clear state–citizen connection. Yet, while this might be the case for more stable societies, for populations coming from realities that are experiencing conflict, state and territoriality are still very important notions. As Osman (2017) explains,

globalization has [ . . . ] created room for the possibility of global democratic progress as well as for the globalization of regression towards symptoms of barbarism. It is through this prism of globalization that diaspora communities from homelands in conflict are negotiating their identities amidst sentiments of placelessness. (p. 76)

The peril that comes from this situation intensifies when, as Appadurai (1990) notes, we recognize that this symbolic idea of homeland that is key in the existence of certain diaspora groups is in fact an invention that comes from the imaginary of those who are outside it. Particularly in the context of conflict-generated diasporas, which include not only those who fled because of the conflict but also those who left for other reasons, the conflict in the homeland has a strong influence in the construction of people’s transnational identity, as clarified by Lyons (2007). Haider (2014) adds that the identity of this type of diaspora is defined by the society they come from, the one they are now living in, and their experience of the violence. This identity is influenced by a sense of collective trauma and by “the recollection of specific traumatic events that are retold to subsequent generations” (p. 212), together with an attachment to their country of origin that never seems to cease.

Therefore, as Osman (2017) maintains, it is important to consider the transnational impact of an ongoing conflict in the lives of diaspora groups who are still connected to their home country. Within this context, diasporic media play a significant role. Cogo, ElHajji, and Huertas (2012) have provided a useful compendium of experiences on the subject of Diaspora, Migration, Communication Technologies, and Transnational Identities, which, as Tufte (2012) has underlined, brings to the surface “convergence cultures, community building, transnational connections and processes of identity formation” (p. 9). Bailey (2015) states that diasporic media are a crucial component of diasporas’ communicative landscape, as they offer both a platform for recognition and representation, and a time for authenticating a sense of belonging. However, Osman (2017) argues that in the case of conflict-generated diaspora, on the one hand, diasporic media (including new communication technologies) allow communities to retrieve and protect their declining identities and values, and on the other hand, they often reinforce a sense of enmity that overrules the democratic vow. They do so by reproducing local nationalism and by maintaining a strong local identity relative to the conflict, even at a transnational level. Osman (2017) calls diasporated conflicts those disputes created by diasporic media, through which those who have better access to technological infrastructure exert a new dominance. In essence, they are “conflicts where there is a hegemonic involvement of the diaspora enabled and empowered by diasporic media” (Osman, 2017, p. 75). From this setting, facilitating media productions that are based on the participation of different groups from the diaspora community is crucial to ensure that a number of perspectives are offered.

Bailey (2015) also explains that diasporic media are often produced in the homeland with the local public in mind and are then reproposed to the diasporas as minority media. This author refers to these as transnational diasporic media and claims that they do not foster a sense of transnationality, nor do they encourage the formation of a transnational identity. These media offer context-specific content that is tied to the history, economy, and culture of the place where they have been produced, which leads the audience to respond on the basis of these specificities (Bailey, 2015). The opening of alternative forms of diasporic media, which see the involvement of diverse diaspora groups and present content developed through the same transnational perspective of those who are exposed to them, can play a significant role not only in presenting the differences between groups but also in highlighting their commonalities and shared struggles.

On this line of thought, Haider (2014) emphasizes how media initiatives can be implemented in order to tackle conflictual relationships among and between diasporas and to promote attitudes of peace and reconciliation that can be useful both in the host and home countries. Productions including books, film, music, and other art-based objects can not only help members of the diaspora to heal, but they can also reshape the discourse on conflict and peace and positively influence the approach adopted by some of the key actors.

The Path Toward a Participatory Photography Project

There are mostly three points that can assist in providing a conceptual introduction to the project presented in this article. First, while the literature on migration and conflict is populated by examples of diasporas originating from Middle Eastern and Latin American countries, there appears to be a lack of analysis from African experiences, especially of those groups who fled the civil wars that started in that continent in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Pirkkalainen & Abdile, 2009). Second, while the literature that focuses on the role of the diaspora and their contribution to peace in their homeland is vast (see Davies, 2008; Hansen, 2016; Horst et al., 2010; Koser, 2007; Osman, 2017; Probst, 2006; Turner, 2008), little is known on how diasporas address peace within the context of their host country, and how conflicts of transnational origins between different groups who now live together are being tackled. Where diverse ethnic lines were a problem in the country of origin, for example, they will continue to play a role in preventing harmony in their hostland (Hansen, 2016). Last, it has been recognized that a definition of what constitutes diaspora is still under debate, with the issue of birth connection adding an element of further uncertainty to the term. The question of children and grandchildren of those who first arrived in a place outside their country of origin still carries an unclear answer, and the way different generations of diasporas experience their reality is yet to be fully understood (Bush, 2008).

Since 1990, the African Great Lakes region has seen the occurrence of a large number of conflicts involving both the different countries that comprise it (Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and Democratic Republic of Congo) and the diverse ethnic groups that inhabit them. Despite the existence of peace agreements, the region is undergoing a very slow recovery, and each country is home to numerous refugees who have fled those wars. For a successful peacebuilding process to take place, feelings such as trust, reciprocity, and belonging to a network must be restored, as suspicion and hatred continue to impact relationships both within and between countries (Ntakarutimana, 2008).

At the same time, while repairing the breakdown of societal structures has been recognized to be a fundamental component in recovering from violent conflict, efforts have been mainly directed toward those who have stayed in (or returned to) their home country. Little attention has been paid to the diaspora generated by conflict, even when relationships between these groups might have similarly been impacted by divisions and hostility (Haider, 2014). As Horst et al. (2010) state, “issues of fragmentation and politicization are often linked to the root causes of a conflict, and thus must be addressed in a constructive manner [since] some lines of fragmentation are deeply engrained within society” (p. 25).

As discussed also in the previous section of this article, even after resettling in a new country, the trauma and resentment caused by the conflict experienced in their homeland are passed on from generation to generation among diaspora communities. One of the factors that perpetuate the conflict in their new reality, in particular, is the ethnic separation that continues to be upheld and reinforced, from parents to children. Some of the young African Great Lakes region diasporas living in Sydney, for example, are taught from an early age not to trust members of (former) enemy tribes, and the dynamics between these communities are dominated by the perceived sense of injustice perpetrated by one group on the other at the time of the conflict. This harms the relationships between young people in Sydney’s multiethnic suburbs; it fragments communities and leads to the recurrence of violent episodes.

Horst et al. (2010) underline how fragmentation has been recognized to be one of the main obstacles when working with conflict-generated diaspora. Yet, as these authors point out, various activities have been implemented at the community level in order to overcome this: participatory exercises to facilitate group discussions with the aim of identifying problems and solutions together have led to positive results, and dialogue initiatives that focus constructively on the roots of divisions have also been helpful.

Baú (2015b) had already studied the use of participatory photography for peacebuilding, demonstrating how images are able to create a constructive dialogue between enemy groups and to provide a space where differences can be shared and understood. Also, Lykes, Terre Blanche, and Hamber (2003), before her, had explored the use of this method and discussed the techniques employed both to develop a response to violence and repression and to restore the social fabric of local communities. The wide literature on participatory communication that has developed over the past few decades (Bessette, 2004; Cadiz, 2005; Gumucio-Dagron, 2001; Huesca, 2003; Manyozo, 2017; Quarry & Ramirez, 2008) has emphasized the importance of allowing communities to express their voice, ensuring that all groups are represented. The media—including theater, music, or even storytelling practices—and more recently, the use of media technologies, such as video and photography, have been regarded as crucial instruments in the facilitation of participatory communication processes (Baú, 2015a; Bery, 2003; Gotschi, Delve, & Freyer, 2009; Singhal, Harter, Chitnis, & Sharma, 2014). This project finds its roots in these concepts.

Breaking the Conflict Cycle Through Images

The initial objectives that were defined for the project involved (i) minimizing intergenerational conflict and (ii) breaking the conflict cycle that impacts the lives of youth from the Great Lake African region communities living in Western Sydney. These were also related to the aims of:

encouraging communication between different groups, creating a more balanced understanding of both past and present in relation to the conflict and enabling the promotion of peace between communities starting from the youth

creating a safe and supportive environment for young people to meet and communicate

This initiative was made possible, thanks to a collaboration with the Great Lakes Agency for Peace and Development (GLAPD), a not-for-profit organization whose programs aim at contributing to peacebuilding and social development among the Congolese, Rwandan, Burundian, and Ugandan communities living in Sydney. It consisted of 4 weekly workshops over the course of 1 month (from mid-August to mid-September 2016), with all activities taking place in Fairfield, one of the Western suburbs of Sydney that is home to a multicultural and mixed-background population, often from a refugee background. As this wanted to be an initial trial of this type of work, with the view of escalating its scope to include additional young people and different suburbs in the future, eight participants were involved, between the age of 14 and 21. The recruitment was carried out by GLAPD, who presented the project to the families who take part in the organization’s community programs. The kids received basic photo camera and photography skills training and participated in various forms of activities including games, group writing, exercises with cameras, and storytelling. All activities saw participants working either in groups or in pairs, and their content was designed to lead to an exchange related both to participants’ cultures and identities, and to the concept of conflict. Throughout the course of the workshops, reflections were regularly presented by each participant on others’ views, experiences, and cultures.

The discussion that ensues is based on the author’s observation of the project and rooted in the stories, comments, and feedback gathered during the course of the participatory photography workshops that were facilitated. The author (and facilitator) designed the project’s structure and the activities that were implemented and kept record of participants’ reactions and emotions as these unfolded. Stories and final feedback group interview were also audio-recorded and transcribed for the purpose of this research (after formal consent was obtained). What is presented here is an analysis based on the author’s impressions and an understanding of and dialogue with project participants.

One of the first aspects that was noticeable as the activities began to unfold was the strong difference both between older and younger participants (teenagers vs. those in their early 20s) and between participants who came to Australia at a very young age and those who arrived at secondary school age. For the latter, the separation between communities was more real, and the reasons for this tension were known with a certain degree of detail. For the others, however, this division did not seem to be as tangible, and the causes that had led to it were not clear enough to be explained. The second aspect that emerged, and which was still very much connected to age, was the strong difference between participants in their ability to express themselves when conveying stories from their lives in their homeland. Older participants were more able to express themselves and to recall the hardship of the conflicts, while younger participants did not seem to know much about it. Older participants were also able to offer deeper insights into their stories and feelings through images, while younger participants’ photos and stories always remained on the surface and were very much limited to the immediate practical tasks involved in each exercise.

One of the exercises that proved to be most powerful in eliciting feelings that could be attributed to the conflict in all participants was the caption matching exercise. Through this game, the kids had to associate a series of images that were provided to them with captions that were to be chosen from a list, and then explain their choice. While the prearranged list can be regarded as a limitation, it allowed participants to work at the same level, and it was useful in order to observe the differences in the discussions that were taking place and in the choices that were made. This task developed strong engagement from all members, who participated attentively and whose contribution went toward a smooth group effort (participants were split into three groups). It was also significant ground for critical thinking and reflections.

What stood out from this exercise, in particular, were the explanations that two participants gave in relation to their captions of preference, as each group was presenting their work. One referred to an unusual matching of an image with its caption. The image represented a group of soldiers traveling on the back of a vehicle, as it is common practice in many African countries (see Figure 1). The same photo was matched by other groups with the word “conflict”; yet, this participant was resolute on his decision of the word “injustice” as the appropriate caption. When the 16-year-old boy was asked to provide a reason for his choice, he explained that if the men on that truck had decided to take up arms and go to fight, it was because something unjust was done to them, and they were trying to address it. Another participant of the same age resorted to what can be considered another curious match between an image of a refugee camp (see Figure 2) with the word “betrayed.” When asked for the reason of her choice, the girl answered that refugee camps are dreadful environments for people to live in, and therefore, no one should be sent there. If a family is made to go and live in a camp, it is an act of betrayal toward them. As evidenced by these short recounts, the ideas presented through this exercise and its photos clearly spoke indirectly of participants’ experiences, whether those being their personal ones, or of their communities.

Figure 1.

Image of soldiers on a truck, matched with the caption “injustice.”

Figure 2.

Image of refugee camp, matched with the word “betrayed.”

Working more directly with photography, participants were asked to take the cameras home for the week and come back with photos of something they felt represented who they were or what their life was about. The name of the first home-based activity, “Who am I?” asked them to take photos of something that they felt represented their identity: something they would do traditionally, either within their family or with the larger community they belong to; something they would typically wear; or a popular dish, for example. These were simply indications, and sense of initiative was encouraged. Here, older participants were able to present particularly meaningful outputs. And while the younger ones took photos that mostly related to their traditional food and clothing, the attention they paid toward the others’ stories and the emotional reaction they offered through their feedback afterward was significant. The most eloquent examples from this exercise include the story of a 21-year-old man of Burundian origins, who had grown up in a refugee camp in Tanzania until his family was successfully resettled in Australia when he was in his early teens. He illustrated his image (see Figure 3) as follows:

Figure 3.

Image from “Who am I?” participatory photography exercise. Author: 21-year-old male participant.

This is my favourite one. It just shows that in life, you start on stairs and sometimes you get that far on it but, if you keep pushing, at the end you’ll be standing up there, looking back thinking “you know, I came from down there.” It’s just because every step you take is painful, but you have a choice to go back down and you have got a choice to keep pushing; you have got obstacles on your way but you keep pushing and eventually, you know, your faith and all will get you there.

Another 21-year-old woman decided to bring to the workshop an old photo, instead of taking a new one. This was an image of her family when still living in Rwanda (see Figure 4). Her photo was accompanied by this poignant story:

Figure 4.

Image from “Who am I?” participatory photography exercise. Author: 21-year-old female participant.

Obviously I didn’t take this photo, but I just wanted to show it because it represents a really big part of me. These are my mum and my dad; we were still in Rwanda before the genocide. I like it because it brings back a lot of memories like it brings back a life that I had before a lot chaos that was then a part of almost 15 years of my life following. So my dad had a good job, working as one of the top politicians as his dad was one of the tribal leaders; my mum was a nurse, actually just finished her doctors - she was a nurse, did her doctors, and she was about to start working as a doctor. It was a really good life, I was just normal. A few years after that photo was taken the genocide started, and obviously my life from this photo onwards hasn’t been as pretty or as cute as that photo has been.

Through another home activity, named “Who is the other?” participants took photos of something that they believed represented the member of the other three communities from the Great Lakes. This would typically be associated to the beliefs or stereotypes they hold about the other groups. They then told the stories around the photos they had taken during their home practice to the whole group. After the storytelling, participants were split into groups and worked on confirming or rectifying the beliefs/stereotypes that were presented about each group. At the end, each group presented their points, engaging in a discussion around them.

A subsequent exercise involved participants working in pairs and explaining to one another something about their respective communities and associated beliefs; they then had to take a portrait of each other in a way that was connected to what they had just heard. All the photos taken were then projected on screen, and each participant presented the story that their partner had told them to the rest of the group and explained the meaning around the image they have taken of him or her. Two girls of 16 and 17 years of age produced particularly expressive outputs for this work. Their photos (Figures 5 and 6) are reproduced below with related stories:

Figure 5.

Image from “The Other’s Story” participatory photography exercise. Author: 16-year-old female participant.

“T. said that Ugandan and Rwandan people don’t get along because they are not nice to each other, and Rwandese people treat them badly. I took this photo because it looks like an innocent person that is being judged for no reason.”

Figure 6.

Image from “The Other’s Story” participatory photography exercise. Author: 17-year-old female participant.

D. told me that she doesn’t really know that much about Congo and her culture, she only knows a little bit. So she told me that in her country the president is from Rwanda, so they don’t really like him because he makes war. In this photo, she looks like she doesn’t know where she’s going and this tells me who she is. It is to show people that sometimes you have to go out there and learn about your culture and find out who you are.

After the storytelling, participants were split into two groups and worked on identifying problems that each community faces, which were highlighted through the stories and images just discussed.

Discussion

Heterogeneity in diasporas means not only that different groups within the same community may not act collectively as a cohesive body in engaging with their home country (Fransen & Siegel, 2011); it also means that different diaspora communities may hinder the development of peaceful relationships due to the beliefs held about the other group, which they have carried over from their country of origin.

The way diaspora groups choose to engage socially can have a number of negative consequences, including the perpetuation of a demonizing mindset that maintains the divisions created in the homeland between communities, and leads to a replication of conflict patterns in the hostland. Positive peacebuilding activities are able to create a neutral space where participants can distance themselves from their hyperpoliticized reality and give the opportunity to communities who were segregated by the conflict to begin to reintegrate. The approach used to do this can take many different forms (Bush, 2008).

Participatory media-making¹ provides the opportunity for diaspora groups to take active part in a community-building process and to negotiate their identity through peaceful means. Meaningful participation involves letting oneself experience fully the process of collaboration, attributing value to all stories and adopting an ethics of relationship. Participation in media-making should open up channels that are helpful to address differences and allow all voices to be heard; this comes with a choice of visual methods that are not only culturally relevant but also of interest to a particular group while placing emphasis on the establishment of a dialogue (Smith, 2017).

Moreover, contrary to Osman’s (2017) view on the powerlessness of globalization on diasporas and on the stronghold of diasporic media (discussed in The State of the Literature on Media, Conflict, and Diaspora section of this article), today’s mass electronic communication driven by forces of globalization can instead gradually attenuate the connection to homeland from generation to generation, enabling the growth of a more localized attachment that favors the hostland (Bush, 2008). As Bailey (2015) states,

[ . . . ] alternative [ . . . ] media practices of diasporic groups might support the creation of spaces of inclusion, participation and political activism, and produce a sense of belonging for many of those groups. [. . . .] The possibility of producing their own media is the result, among other elements, of processes of migration, of media misrepresentation of minority groups and of changes in the media landscape mostly generated by new communication and information technologies. (p. 416)

While the illustration and reflections deriving from this project do not allow to produce sound results related to its impact, due both to the small number of participants involved and to the limited data drawn from the activities, what has emerged here enables us to begin to understand the potential that initiatives based on this type of design can have, when implemented with conflict-affected diaspora. The creation of spaces where participatory communication, creativity, and media-making are woven together represents an important method to explore and to build upon for future work in the area of peacebuilding between different diaspora groups; this method can prove to be particularly effective with the youth, who are more familiar with but also more curious toward the use of media technologies. When asked about their final impressions of the project, there was an overall consensus among the group on the significance of photography as a tool for self-expression and on the value of the opportunity that was given to them to meet each other and share the same space through this initiative. As the words of a 14-year-old participant reveal:

What I am going to take away from this program . . . I have learned things that I never knew about, because I thought - before this program – I knew everything about cameras, right? Because I knew I could just turn on the camera, take a picture, check it (good or bad?), done. But I have actually learned techniques about taking photos; I have learned about expressing myself through a photo; I have learned how to read photos. I have learned how to verify and know what a photo is saying by just the people’s expressions. So I guess I have learned a lot from this program.

At the same time, encouraging participation and inventiveness in the use of a visual channel like photography allows people to get a more accurate perspective of the different stories and to develop an emotional connection. A 16-year-old participant has expressed this effectively:

I have learned about cameras and how to express myself through them. I have learned about different cultures like where everyone came from, how life is different. Like you may think you are going through a hard time but compared to someone else, yours is really nothing. So yes . . . I have learned to be resilient too.

From a more logistical viewpoint, while the strengths of this project can be identified in the provision, for the kids who participated, of a safe space, of accessible photo cameras, and in the value of the team work that took place during the workshops, some limitations are also present. These revolve particularly around the lack of regular participation or attendance in workshops for some of the youths, as well as engagement with photography home practice, which was required to progress with the workshops’ program’s activities. It was hard to establish the exact reasons as to why this was taking place and to put in place a system to solve that. Hence, activities often had to be shifted around in the program’s schedule, and the structure that was designed prior to the start of the project had to be revisited over the course of the weeks.

Final Reflections

Reflections on the initial objectives and aims that were set for the project lead to the following considerations:

Minimizing intergenerational conflict: This objective was recognized to be inapplicable to the project soon after it started. This is attributable both to the time limitations imposed by the project’s design and to the reluctance of participants to discuss in too much depth the divergent views they held from their parents. Having a more homogenous group in reference to age could be one of the ways to remove some of the obstacles to this discussion. Future projects in this area should be designed with this single objective as the focus of their activities and allow more time for participants from the same age-group to open up.

Breaking the conflict cycle that impacts the lives of youth from these communities: While this initiative was not thought to put a definite end to the conflicts between the young generations of the African Great Lakes region diaspora in Sydney, participants’ engagement with and reactions to some of the activities demonstrates that its design can be useful in initiating a constructive dialogue and in giving people the opportunity to learn from one another. Interestingly, what became noticeable as the workshops progressed was the absence of conflict in the lives of the younger participants (14 to 17 years old), who appeared to have a good relationship with other African communities in general. These also appeared to hold very little knowledge of other African cultures as well as their own, except for basic differences in food, clothing, and perhaps rituals at ceremonies. This suggests that selecting participants within an age bracket of late teen and early 20s might be a more effective strategy for future work in this area, as older participants were able to engage in more detailed explanations and meaningful exchanges in relation to their background and that of others. Given the relevance of the activities for this age-group, another useful tactic to adopt in the reproduction of this type of project is the recruitment of those young people who are regarded as key influencers among their peers.

Encouraging communication between different groups creating a more balanced understanding of both past and present in relation to the conflict: This was achieved from a slightly more individual rather than group angle. Participants appeared to reflect more successfully on themselves individually and on their communities in general, rather than on the beliefs they held about or the interactions they had with others.

Creating a safe and supportive environment for young people to meet and communicate: As discussed previously, the project was especially effective in this area. As also highlighted by GLAPD workers, kids from these communities have seldom the chance to develop a constructive group discussion that addresses their differences and beliefs. It is even more rare that they do so using a medium they can employ to express themselves in creative ways.

Conclusions

This article has discussed the experience of a project carried out with a group of young members of different diasporas, which employed participatory photography as an alternative form of diasporic medium. The initiative presented here was designed around the objective of breaking the conflict cycle that impacts the lives of youth from the African Great Lakes region’s communities living in Sydney. More specifically, it wanted to provide a space to encourage communication between different groups in order to create a safe and supportive environment for young people to meet and communicate and to enable the promotion of peace between communities starting from the youth.

First, the article has introduced scholarly works that are found within the literatures on diaspora in peacebuilding and on the role of the media in the context of this group. It has then presented the main theoretical and circumstantial concepts that have offered the bases for the design of the media initiative examined. Reflections and accounts related to the project activities have also been presented, along with some of the outputs produced by the participants and relevant stories. The discussion that followed this latter section has indicated what were some of the key elements that are useful for the development of future work in this area. Limitations and observations regarding the project’s objectives and aims have also been reviewed.

While the contribution of diaspora in peacebuilding within the context of the home country is a crucial subject that warrants additional investigation, the role that young diaspora can play in breaking the conflict cycle that has been impacting their communities for generations in the hostland, and that is based on issues that are mostly contextually meaningful in their homeland, must be explored further. Developing new avenues through which the youth can find ways to communicate with their peers and initiate a dialogue that goes beyond the long-standing issues passed on from parents to children is a significant step to take in the lives of diasporas. Such step can not only ultimately bring a contribution to peace in their homeland, but it would also create a shared space where the commonalities between different groups are brought to light and used to build peaceful relationships. The media can have a significant responsibility in this setting.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

Author Biography

Valentina Baú works as a lecturer and researcher at the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia). Both as a practitioner and as a researcher, her work has focused on the use of the media and communication in international development. She has completed a PhD on the role of participatory media in conflict transformation and reconciliation after civil violence. Her present research explores different approaches and evaluation in methodologies in the area of Communication for Development in Peacebuilding. Valentina has collaborated with different international nongovernmental organizations, the United Nations, and the Italian Development Cooperation and worked in different contexts in Africa and Asia. Her experience involves the implementation of both research and media projects with victims and perpetrators of conflict, displaced people, refugees, and people living in extreme poverty. Her work is published on established academic journals as well as renowned online platforms.

References

Appadurai

(1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture, 2, 1–24.

Bailey

O. G.

(2015). Diasporic media in multicultural societies. In Atton

(Ed.), The Routledge companion to alternative and community media (pp. 414–425). Oxon, England: Routledge.

Baú

(2015a). Building peace through social change communication. Participatory video in conflict-affected communities. Community Development Journal, 50(1), 121–137.

Baú

(2015b). Participatory photography for peace. Using images to open up dialogue after violence. Journal of Peacebuilding and Development, 10(3), 74–88.

Bery

(2003). Participatory video that empowers. In White

S. A.

(Ed.), Participatory video: Images that transform and empower (pp. 102–121). London, England: Sage.

Bessette

(2004). Involving the community: A guide to participatory development communication. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

Bush

(2008). Diaspora engagement in peacebuilding. In Pugh

Cooper

Turner

(Eds.), Whose peace? Critical perspectives on the political economy of peacebuilding (pp. 191–205). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cadiz

M. C. H.

(2005). Communication for empowerment. The practice of participatory communication in development. In Hemer

Tufte

(Eds.), Media & glocal change: Rethinking communication for development (pp. 145–158). Gothenburg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Cogo

ElHajji

Huertas

(2012). Diaspora, migration, communication technologies and transnational identities. Barcelona, Spain: Institut de la Comunicació (InCom-UAB) – Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

10.

Davies

(2008). Rwandese diaspora and the reconstruction of a fragile peace. In Pugh

Cooper

Turner

(Eds.), Whose peace? Critical perspectives on the political economy of peacebuilding (pp. 206–221). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

11.

Fransen

Siegel

(January, 2011). The development of diaspora engagement policies in Burundi and Rwanda (UNU-MERIT Working Paper No.038). Maastricht, the Netherlands: Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU MERIT).

12.

Gotschi

Delve

Freyer

(2009). Participatory photography as a qualitative approach to obtain insights into farmer groups. Field Methods, 21(3), 290–308.

13.

Gumucio-Dagron

(2001). Making waves: Stories of participatory communication for social change. New York, NY: The Rockefeller Foundation.

14.

Haider

(2014). Transnational transitional justice and reconciliation: The participation of conflict-generated diasporas in addressing the legacy of mass violence. Journal of Refugee Studies, 27(2), 207–233.

15.

Hansen

J. M.

(2016). Women building peace after forced migration: The case of the Myanmar Diaspora in Norway (GPR Policy Brief No. 02). Oslo, Norway: PRIO Centre on Gender, Peace and Security.

16.

Horst

Ezzati

Guglielmo

Mezzetti

Pirkkalainen

Saggiomo

Warnecke

(2010). Participation of diasporas in peacebuilding and development. A handbook for practitioners. Oslo, Norway: Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO).

17.

Huesca

(2003). Participatory approaches to communication for development: A 21st century perspective. In Mody

(Ed.), International and development communication (pp. 209–226). London, England: Sage.

18.

Koser

(2007). African diasporas and post-conflict reconstruction: An Eritrean case study. In Smith

Stares

(Eds.), Diasporas in conflict: Peacemakers or peace wreckers? (pp. 239–252). Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University Press.

19.

Lykes

M. B.

Terre Blanche

Hamber

(2003). Narrating survival and change in Guatemala and South Africa: The politics of representation and a liberatory community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1/2), 79–90.

20.

Lyons

(2007). Conflict-generated diasporas and transnational politics in Ethiopia. Conflict, Security & Development, 7(4), 529–549.

21.

Manyozo

(2017). Communicating development with communities. London, England: Routledge.

22.

Ntakarutimana

(2008). The challenge of recovering from war trauma in the African Great Lakes region: An experience from Centre Ubuntu in the Project Colombe Network. Intervention, 6(2), 162–166.

23.

Osman

(2017). Media, diaspora and the Somali conflict. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

24.

Pirkkalainen

Abdile

(March, 2009). The diaspora – Conflict – Peace – Nexus: A literature review (Diaspeace Working Paper No.1). Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.

25.

Probst

(2006). Diasporas as catalysts for dialogue: The cases of Laos and Papua (Oslo Forum Paper No.005). Geneva, Switzerland: Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.

26.

Quarry

Ramirez

(2008, July 20–25). Communication common sense: Participatory communication and the politics of development programs. Paper presented at IAMCR Conference “Media and Global Divides,” Stockholm, Sweden.

27.

Singhal

Harter

L. M.

Chitnis

Sharma

(2004, April 15–17). Shooting back: Participatory photography in entertainment-education. Paper presented at Entertainment-Education and Global Africa Conference, Athens, Ohio.

28.

Smith

R. M.

(2017). New voices and narrative participatory photography: A culturally relevant method for intercultural exchange. In N. Hersey

Bobick

(Eds.), Handbook of research on the facilitation of civic engagement through community art (pp. 267–293). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

29.

Tufte

(2012). Foreward. In Cogo

ElHajji

Huertas

(Eds.), Diaspora, migration, communication technologies and transnational identities (pp. 9–12). Barcelona, Spain: Institut de la Comunicació (InCom-UAB) – Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

30.

Turner

(2008). Three discourses on diasporas and peacebuilding. In Pugh

Cooper

Turner

(Eds.), Whose peace? Critical perspectives on the political economy of peacebuilding (pp. 173–190). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.