Emerging Trends in Conflict Management. Volume II Track III Actions: Transforming Protracted Political Conflicts from the Bottom-up 9783110698374, 9783110698312

Citation preview

Track III Actions

Emerging Trends in Conflict Management

Editor-in-Chief Helena Desivilya Syna

Volume 2

Track III Actions

Transforming Protracted Political Conflicts from the Bottom-up Edited by Helena Desivilya Syna and Geoffrey Corry

ISBN 978-3-11-069831-2 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-069837-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-069839-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2022941370 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Gettyimages/ngupakarti Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Professor Mari Fitzduff for writing the Foreword and De Gruyter for their support and effort in publishing this book. We also wish to thank all the authors who contributed to this book. We dedicate it to all those who strive to transform the adverse relationships among people in divided societies into constructive encounters fostering shared life in joint communities and organizations. Geoffrey Corry is grateful to his colleagues at the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation over many years for being part of the political dialogue and peacemaking team, particularly working with Pat Hynes in confidential residential events where the real talking happens. Special thanks are also due to Michelle LeBaron of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver for the opportunity she gave me to spend some time at the Peter Wall Institute of Advanced Studies to deepen my thinking on the architecture of the Northern Ireland peace process. As always, I am grateful to my wife Siobhan for allowing me to spend so much of our family time in my study and at my PC devoted to my writing at this stage of my life. Helena Desivilya Syna expresses her gratitude and appreciation to the participants in the projects and studies mentioned in this book and to her colleagues at Yezreel Valley College as well as in other organizations engaged in peace building efforts, who have continuously provided me with meaningful learning experiences and novel insights. She also would like to thank Ms. Michal Perry for her invaluable technical assistance.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-202

Foreword Peace building is rather like putting together a jigsaw. There is usually not just one way to put the necessary peace together. Rather, it can take many tries and many ‘pieces of peace’ to ensure that violence as a way of solving conflict can be left behind, and other processes such as politics, law, mediation, equality institutions etc. become the norm through which societal conflicts can be solved. As part of such development, it is fundamental to note that it is rare for agreements created just by politicians, militaries, and paramilitaries alone to be sufficient to ensure the transitions that are needed to move beyond the use of violence to ensuring sustainable peace. If constituents and institutions on all sides are not prepared for, and involved in, such peacebuilding, any peace agreements will wither and die without the essential support of people and communities on all sides to embed them satisfactorily into their fractured contexts. In undertaking such embedding, the processes of bottom-up peacebuilding interventions are crucial. While Track I requires the necessary political and military power holders to engage in bargaining about the nature of any end agreements, and Track II involves unofficial non-governmental contacts and activities between private citizens assisting in the development of Track I activities, the book suggests that it is also vitally important to develop Track III approaches to such peacebuilding. The book addresses both the Northern Ireland peacebuilding processes, and such processes between Arabs and Jews who are all citizens of Israel. In it the authors suggest that inclusive bottom up approaches involving the constituencies and citizens of Track I participants are vital if any agreements made are to be sustainable. Without such bottom up engagement, peace agreements will eventually fail as societies meet the reality of having to accept compromises for which they are unprepared, or the need for post violence relational requirements, and institutional processes, for which they have undertaken no ground work. Ideally, as the authors suggest, Track III work should begin long before any agreements are signed. Given their often low key nature, Track III individuals and institutions can significantly help the birth and sustainability of peace agreements, as shown in this book, because they can usually move more freely under public and media radars than known power brokers. It is often extremely difficult for those who are either local or national politicians to involve themselves in private and constructive dialogue with each other as they are usually very closely watched by their constituents. Discussions between them often happen only at a public level, and their public utterances about their conflicts are usually addressed to their own constituency, who, many politicians fear, are watching, listening, and waiting lest their spokespersons betray their hopes and beliefs. Track III peacebuilders can therefore assist the development of dialogues and vocabularies that can help deliver what is

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-203

VIII

Foreword

needed for any agreements. They can do this by testing out future possibilities for any inclusive futures together, and by developing and enhancing the work that is needed in post violent situations to ensure a successful embedding of any new constitutional or societal agreements. Track III work can also help develop the relational contexts that are required to underpin and prepare people for any settlements that are to decide their future. People often fail to recognise that finding the solution to a conflict is not necessarily the problem. Those of us involved in peacebuilding in either the Middle East or Northern Ireland are well aware of the hundreds of ‘solutions’ we have awaiting usage in our filing cabinets. The harder task is often getting those with power, and their constituents, to develop enough trust together to open these cabinets and search positively and productively together for what is agreed is needed if any peacebuilding is to be sustainable. In addition, as this book shows, Track III work can bring the leverage of institutions such as trade unions, faith groups, business people, academics and community groups to bear upon the successful development and delivery of any agreements, and of post violence work. Through the kinds of tough discussions noted in the book, that can address the justice, relational and historical contexts of their conflicts, they can help prepare people and societies to function more productively in any envisaged more peaceful society. Strengthening such connections through productive mutual analysis and learning is therefore vital in all conflict situations in helping people deal with the Pandora box of fears that many in a conflict have about such discussions. Such work is critical and can help develop models of dialogue that can be multiplied throughout societies seeking to ensure discussions that can underpin and prepare a society for an ending to violence, and a secure context that can be shared by all societies aligned with the conflict. The transition from an agreement to sustainable peace, as noted by some of the authors in this book is always tough as parties muse over what has been lost, and who has lost most, and what has been gained, and how such gains can be satisfactorily exemplified in and between communities. Equality issues, segregation issues, victim’s needs, demobilisation needs, and the preparation for such groups if possible to transition into politics, all need the assistance of active change agents at Track III level, to ensure that the envisaged peacebuilding can succeed. This book is an important one, expanding as it does the work of peacebuilding in active and post violent contexts beyond the usual coterie of Track I leaders and power brokers. Too many conflicts have failed to ensure that this work is undertaken as an essential part of the work of achieving and embedding any peacebuilding agreements. Undertaking and multiplying Track III approaches with people and groups who can thoughtfully accompany constituencies through the development of such work by politicians and others is crucial to peacebuilding success. Such

Foreword

IX

approaches can, if multiplied, help ensure more engaged and more inclusive communities who are committed to ensuring together that an agreed upon peaceful society is both possible and sustainable. Mari Fitzduff June 2022

Contents Acknowledgments Foreword

V

VII

Helena Desivilya Syna, Geoffrey Corry 1 Introduction to Track III Perspectives: Transforming Protracted Political Conflicts in Post-Conflict and Active Conflict Societies 1

Part I: Transforming from below the Post-Armed conflict phase in Northern Ireland Geoffrey Corry 2 Post-Agreement Northern Ireland: a slow generational change or a peace process in crisis? 13 Avila Kilmurray 3 Community-Based peacebuilding: Signals for Track III

33

Seán Brennan 4 Community Development since the 1970’s: Track II Forward, Track III Back? 47 5

Insider Mediation of Contentious Parading 63 5.1 Case Study – Mediating an Identity Conflict: Lessons from The Drumcree Parades Dispute 1995–1999 (Brendan McAllister) 64 5.2 Case Study – Solving parading issues in Derry/Londonderry: Pre-mediation in preparing parties for engagement for face-to-face negotiations (Michael Doherty) 77

6

Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots 83 6.1 Case Study – The Corrymeela Community experience in promoting an ‘Island of Peace’ (Shona Bell) 85 6.2 Case Study – The role played by organised labour against sectarian violence (Seán Byers) 89 6.3 Case Study – Reflections on the Hard Gospel Project (Rev Earl Storey) 95 6.4 Case Study – Peace history of the ‘Troubles’: piecing it together (Rob Fairmichael) 99

XII

Contents

7

Inter-communal Dialogue 107 7.1 Case Study – Community think tanks and ‘The Island’ pamphlets (Michael Hall) 108 7.2 Case Study 2 – Strengthening Civic Society through Community Dialogue (Jim O’Neill) 117

8

Making Peace with the Past 123 8.1 Case Study – Women, Conflict and Trauma (Holly Taylor) 125 8.2 Case Study – Healing the wounds: The Glencree workshops with victims and former combatants 1998–2008 (Geoffrey Corry) 129

Part II: Track III processes and actions in the context of active political conflict Helena Desivilya Syna 9 Track III initiatives in the context of Israel’s divided society and the protracted Israeli-Palestinian political conflict 145 Reuven Gal 10 The long-term impact of a transformative learning-experience of rival co-existence activists 151 Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar 11 Developing Spaces for Dialogue in a Complex and Diverse Academic Environment: A Critical-Humanistic Organizational Approach 165 Oriana Abboud Armaly, Daniella Arieli, Victor J. Friedman 12 Developing a model for intergroup dialogue in academia: Jewish and Arab Students in Israel 185 Lubna Tannous Haddad, Orna Tzischinsky 13 The Intercultural Encounter of college students in a Research Seminar 203 Ran Kuttner 14 Developing Regional Mediational Leadership as a Means for Cultivating Dialogue 219

Contents

Linda Jakob Sadeh 15 Contact at work: Appraising the effect of the confrontation and JointProject models on intra-organizational dynamics, workers’ experience and political consciousness 237 List of Figures

257

List of Tables

259

List of Contributors Index

263

261

XIII

Helena Desivilya Syna, Geoffrey Corry

1 Introduction to Track III Perspectives: Transforming Protracted Political Conflicts in Post-Conflict and Active Conflict Societies Abstract: The introductory chapter sets the stage for the rest of the book. First, it sketches the theoretical framework underlying the escalation dynamics of intergroup protracted political conflict in deeply divided societies. Subsequently, their ramifications on post conflict (Northern Ireland) and active conflict (Israel) societies are delineated. The chapter outlines the emerging Track III perspective, focusing on bottom-up interventions designed to transform protracted political conflict into constructive encounters among individuals and groups in deeply divided societies, while juxtaposing this framework with Track I and Track II approaches of engaging protracted conflicts. Finally, the introduction provides an overview of the chapters in Part 1 and in Part 2, which underscore the experiences of those involved in Track III actions in natural spaces of encounter. Keywords: Track III, grass-roots, civil society, divided society, natural spaces of encounter, conflict escalation

Deeply entrenched political conflicts persist in highly diverse countries and societies all over the globe, perturbing interpersonal, intergroup and international relations and disrupting daily life, often with grave consequences. Recent devastating manifestations of protracted political conflicts in Africa, Eastern and Central Europe and Middle East, attest to the adverse ramifications, exacerbated by global intricacies such as COVID-19 and mounting climate crisis. This volume attempts to explore and unravel a Track III perspective – an emerging framework aimed at developing an inclusive approach to engaging political conflicts and building peace. This perspective captures bottom-up interventions designed to transform protracted political conflict into constructive encounters among individuals and groups in deeply divided societies. The book breaks new ground by discussing and juxtaposing living experiences and insights of scholars and practitioners related to participative, bottom-up efforts of conflict metamorphosis to cooperative relations between long-standing antagonists (Shotter & Tsoukas, 2014). Protracted political conflicts tend to implant deep and enduring psychological and social negative residues on the individual, group, community, organizational and the wide society levels (Desivilya Syna, 2020). They constitute an extreme epitome of a divided society and display certain features such as persistence, inevitability https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-001

2

Helena Desivilya Syna, Geoffrey Corry

of frictions and confrontations, threatened rudimentary needs, convictions that the discord is intractable and usually upsurges of severe violence (Bar-Tal, 2011). Such sequel lays the foundations for conflict escalation dynamics: accumulative multi-modal (cognitive, emotional, motivational and behavioural) and multi-level (individual, intra-group, intergroup and societal) modifications in the adversary parties’ relations (Coleman, 2000; Krisberg, 1998; Pruitt & Olczak, 1995; Syna Desivilya, 2004). At the individual level, escalation erodes the motivation for contact with the adversary. In addition, the escalation process engenders growing obstinacy on all sides, fosters increasingly negative mutual emotions, invidious perceptions and growing distrust towards the other. This destructive process also manifests in disrupted communication among the rival parties and mounting aggressive behaviours geared at blaming the other, retaliation and vengeance (Desivilya Syna, 2020). Concurrently with the increasingly negative changes at the individual level, the escalation process involves transformations at the group level and at the wider societal level. The intragroup metamorphosis demonstrates growing ethnocentrism and groupthink. Each group tends to justify its own goals while delegitimizing the other. Moreover, group leaders manifest growing efforts to impose intragroup conformity and suppress any dissent (Bar-Tal, 2011; Coleman, 2000; Pruitt & Olczak, 1995; Syna Desivilya, 2004). Mounting polarization places great pressures on individuals and groups through intimidation or withdrawal of different kinds of support. Hence, they feel they have no other alternative than to join one of the rivalry collectives. The potency of the escalatory dynamics and the resulting negative cumulative changes develop due to a circular causality, where hostile motivation, adverse feelings and attitudes, destructive behaviour, and an antagonistic environment cultivate and sustain each other. Such a hurtful sequel produces increasing hopelessness regarding the odds of settling the protracted conflict (Syna Desivilya, 2004).

Approaches to rebuilding divided societies entrenched in legacies of escalation The adverse multimodal and multilevel legacies provide the impetus for scholars, practitioners and policy makers to explore and experiment with a variety of approaches and methods, aimed at counteracting the disruptions and rebuilding divided societies through conflict transformation. These approaches largely build on attempts to create shared spaces for constructive encounters, allowing not only joint attainment of interests but also facilitating meaningful expression of each party’s voices (Desivilya Syna, 2020). Extant research has not yet sufficiently explained the ongoing contact and interactions involved in intergroup relations in real life situations and especially in post-conflict and active conflict societies (Desivilya Syna, 2020; Raz-Rotem, Arieli, &

1 Introduction to Track III Perspectives

3

Desivilya Syna, 2021; Schäffer, Kauff, Prati, Kros, Lang, & Christ, 2021). In particular, Paolini et al. (2016) have stressed the importance of the temporal dimension, by showing how the history of contact with out-group members and the interactions between them can have both positive and negative impacts. Schäffer et al. (2021) have provided specific evidence based on a series of experimental, survey and qualitative studies together with an integration of research through meta-analysis. They conclude that not only the history of contact matters but also underscore the contribution of the type of interaction – whether they are episodic or continuous – with the latter yielding more experiences of positive than negative contact. These scholars call for further research on the nature of contact, at the micro, meso and macro levels in specific real life contexts such as workplaces, neighborhoods and public spaces. Special attention should be pointed at the consequences of negative contact and ways to mitigate its adverse effects on the relationships between diverse individuals and groups. Consequently, fostering positive transformation of relations between ‘rival’ parties, in the context of precarious incremental residues of protracted political conflict necessitates pooled resources, joint mobilization and shared actions of all stakeholders. These efforts should be directed at multiple levels (macro, meso and micro) and the different modalities of human experience that is motivation, emotions, cognitions and behaviors (Bekerman, 2018; Dixon et al., 2012; Syna Desivilya, 2004). Such approaches encompass social and educational initiatives aimed at engendering a system-wide transformation of relations between the ‘adversaries’ in real-life settings. This involves fostering deep and constructive interactions between diverse employees, students, and community residents (Friedman, et al., 2019). Moreover, these ventures attempt to foster reflective practice among the diverse protagonists in workplaces, public spaces and communities (Desivilya & Rottman, 2012; Friedman, et al., 2019). Another important ingredient of conflict transformation in real-life settings constitutes developing genuine partnerships, involving constant dialogue among the stakeholders – social entrepreneurs, facilitators, participants and local leadership (Desivilya & Palgi, 2011; Desivilya & Rottman, 2012). The multi-modal and multi-level approach of conflict transformation requires involvement of active third parties. This allows assisting the diverse parties to uncover the latent intricacy of confronting ‘otherness’ in organizations and communities engulfed by escalated and protracted discords. The third party actions entail divulging elusive signs of de-legitimization, discrimination, exclusion and silencing of voices. In parallel with these interventions, vital support can be provided to negotiate the terms of engagement, notably negotiating power-relations, by developing a critical stance and building the capacity and skills of the parties (Eden & Huxham, 2001). This volume frames the approaches aimed at counteracting the escalatory farreaching consequences, rebuilding divided societies and transforming intergroup relations within a novel perspective labeled Track III.

4

Helena Desivilya Syna, Geoffrey Corry

Track III perspective within a multi-track approach Over the past thirty years since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990’s, a multitrack approach to peacemaking and peacebuilding has found favour at the UN and the EU as well as among international non-governmental organisations (INGOs). It offers a comprehensive and integrated conflict transformation strategy. Figure 1.1 visualises what a multi-track approach looks like in a peace-making pyramid of three levels of power that includes within it the civil society wheel. When it becomes all joined up vertically and horizontally through webs of relationships, it forms a ‘whole-of-society approach’ to peace-making and peacebuilding (Lederach, 1997; Goldner-Ebenthal & Dudouet 2017). MULTIPLE PEACEMAKING TRACKS

TRACK I Government ministers & diplomats

TRACK I 1/2 Officials meet unofficially with parties

TRACK II Political party sub-leaders and civil society influentials

TRACK III Grassroots leaders Civil society groups Clubs & agencies Families and local neighbourhoods

High level political & elite leaders

Few

Secret Unofficial Back Channels Track II: Dialogue and Problem Solving workshops

Civil Society Sectors & Actors – Inter-communal dialogue workshops – Intra-community organisational empowerment – Local peace committees

Connecting the various pathways between the tracks

Many

Figure 1.1: The Multi-Track Peacebuilding Pyramid. Source: Diagram integrates Montville (1987), Rouhana & Kelman (1994) and Lederach (1997) models.

The pyramid of multiple tracks provides an instrument both for planning peacebuilding strategies in a proactive way and deciding the timing and nature – informal and formal – of appropriate interventions in each track at different stages of a peace process. Members of peace-making teams can also use it for analysing complex conflicts and for mapping the dynamic connections and discontinuities within and between each track. It can become a launching pad for unlocking fresh thinking on how the tracks might reinforce and inform each other and to leverage new approaches to more effective peacebuilding through horizontal inclusivity and vertical cohesion. Track III is a new concept in the academic literature and has not received the same amount of attention as Track II workshops. This book embarks on a journey to explore and unravel what constitutes a Track III perspective – an emerging framework

1 Introduction to Track III Perspectives

5

aimed at developing an inclusive bottom-up approach to engaging ordinary people and civil society in resolving and transforming political conflicts and building social peace. Overall, it involves a shift from the political peace process at the top level mainly concerned with achieving a negotiated settlement to a social peace process from the bottom-up. While it is mostly concerned with the repair and rebuilding of social relationships after violence, together with the restoration of the community bond (Brewer 2010), it also contributes to holding communities together during periods of political violence. Such a social process has also been described as ‘peacebuilding from below’ surfacing often in an uncoordinated and unconnected way by local ‘ordinary people’ who have been deeply affected by violent conflict and are responding to further threats of local political violence. The Track III perspective was originally called ‘citizen diplomacy’ with a vision of involving ordinary civil society people directly in people-to-people contact between states (Montville, 1987). However, our focus on Track III is different. It is primarily concerned with the direct participation by ‘ordinary everyday people’ at a grassroots level within states in different types of interactive encounters, as follows: – To raise awareness and empowerment within grass roots communities and marginalised people, through training workshops, radio talk shows and other forms of media exposure. – To improve understanding and trust through cross-community talk processes between hostile communities that are experiencing the day-to-day consequences of polarisation and violence. – To develop community-based ‘zones of peace’ and safe havens where local leaders hold people together in the face of violence and initiate measures to mitigate the violence or reduce it (Hancock & Mitchell 2007). – To give agency to local actors by opening up lines of communication below the radar with the business, media and professional sectors for their needs and views to be heard and understood within the higher levels of civil society. – To give context sensitivity and local ownership to a peace process by feeding civil society views directly into the Track I top table where the negotiations are taking place. Much of Track III peace work remains hidden and hardly ever gets acknowledged in the media or written up in case studies or biographies. Many activists want it to be just like that because they want to keep out of the limelight. Besides, they are so active they do not have time to write up their experiences or explain the nature of the interventions they make within civil society as peacemakers. Usually, it is twenty or thirty years later that it is possible to break confidentiality and come out of the shadows to talk to journalists about what really happened. Hence the need for scholars to put the spotlight on models, projects and third party interventions that happen in the grassroots, to understand the dynamics of a bottom up peace process and how they support the climate for leaders to take risks for peace.

6

Helena Desivilya Syna, Geoffrey Corry

In addition, the contributions of Track III perspective need to be considered in the context of active-political conflicts where grass-roots and civil society interventions operate in parallel to ongoing tensions and continuing escalation dynamics, with no official (Track I) or back channel (Track II) peace negotiations. This volume delves deeply into two different divided societies: Northern Ireland and Israel learning about the experiences of the protagonists while engaging in Track III initiatives.

Overview of Part I The first part of the book looks at grassroots interventions that have taken place in Northern Ireland mainly during the post-Agreement phase of the peace process from 1998 onwards. Nearly all the authors, from both sides of the community, have worked as practitioners on the ground and they examine and reflect on the many challenges they have faced in transforming a society that remains deeply divided impacted by the thirty years of violence of the Troubles (1969–1998). The strong implementation of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement by the British and Irish governments subsequently working together for nine years ensured stability through the establishment of a power-sharing government. This could not have happened without an agreed parallel process of the decommissioning of republican and loyalist paramilitary weapons and the signing up by republican Sinn Fein to a reformed police force. Some community activists are not comfortable with the generic term ‘post-conflict’ and prefer describing their situation as ‘post-armed-conflict’ because conflict has not disappeared but continues in new forms without the widespread use of violence. Chapter 2 opens with an analysis of the Faultline that has polarized the northern part of Ireland since the Ulster Plantation in the seventeenth century. Five layers of the Faultline are identified that over time created a binary identity conflict around land, religion and nationalism. This powerful cocktail led to the partition of the island of Ireland in 1921 and the establishment of Northern Ireland keeping it within the United Kingdom. While the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement (GFA) resolved the binary identity issue by legally recognizing both Irish and British identity based on the principle of ‘parity of esteem’, it did not resolve the constitutional issue but managed it by pushing it down the road for a decision to be made by another generation. This description of the big picture sets the scene for the next six chapters to explore the challenges for civil society organisations and community-based groups in going about the huge task of transforming the relationships between the two identity communities. Geoffrey Corry concludes with positive indications that the slow rise of a middle ground and generational change is melting the intensity of the identity conflict with people opting out of binary politics. However, some of these gains are now threatened by the divisive outworking of the Brexit decision (2016) to leave the EU and the arrangements for a new border in the Irish Sea.

1 Introduction to Track III Perspectives

7

In Chapter 3, based on her considerable professional experience of supporting grassroots activism in the face of violence, Avila Kilmurray shows the difference between local peacebuilding by civil society organisations and community-based groups. Because locally managed organisations tend to be driven by external resource-holders, they do not have the same sustainability as groups that are both locally led and locally owned. She believes strongly in localisation – the long-term goal to shift power to local-based groups and local ownership. Avila also explores the consequences of protracted violent conflict on single identity communities and the challenges for community workers in supporting inter-community relations. She points out the need for small networks of trusted advisors to support those who act as bridge builders so that they fully understand the other side and their ‘bubble’ of insiders. In Chapter 4, Sean Brennan provides a retrospective overview of how the work of community relations got off the ground in the early 1970’s through the state-run Community Relations Commission (CRC). Influenced by John Burton, the Australian diplomat who became a pioneer of Track II workshops, four CRC officers were employed in a novel scheme for those times. There were tensions and battles for local control between the churches and community leaders on both sides of the community. Increasingly the old Parish Councils gave way to community-based groups and tenant associations. However, the introduction of direct rule from London and the policy of ‘Ulsterisation’ in the mid-1970’s to manage the conflict brought a different tension – this time about the allocation of state funding for developing local services. Sean explores how the unionist and nationalist communities fared differently due to the power of local political elites. The remaining four chapters present eight case studies of Track III actions to illuminate the quiet work of inter-communal dialogue that has gone on under the radar. Two case studies in Chapter 5 look at different efforts – one in Portadown and the other in Derry – to mediate the contested issue of Orange parades going through nationalist areas. The peace process was seriously challenged at street level through local people, backed by outsiders, expressing their traditional collective identity and protecting their local territorial boundaries. Brendan McAllister reflects on the inter-mediation process that his team used but wonders whether a narrative approach would have been more appropriate. In contrast, the business community in Derry got involved and supported a consensus-building approach. The four case studies in Chapter 6 illustrate the efforts by different civil society organisations to address the pervasive nature of sectarianism in their respective sectors – namely, the trade union movement attempting to keep sectarianism out of the workplace, the mainstream Church of Ireland having to respond to what happened around Drumcree parish church and the long term ecumenical vision promoted by the Corrymeela Community. In his Chapter 7 case study, Michael Hall shares the journey he made in becoming a facilitator of dialogue between loyalists and republicans. He had to accept the reality of what people were saying but realised he did not have to agree with them. But by

8

Helena Desivilya Syna, Geoffrey Corry

turning their recorded anonymous conversations into a pamphlet, he enabled the thinking of each of their communities. Jim O’Neill shows how community-based dialogue projects on peace process topics improved understandings between the communities on the complexities of the issues and enabled them to examine the consequences of different options. Finally, the main case study in Chapter 8 reviews the role played by psycho-social workshops at the Glencree Centre in trauma recovery for victim/survivors and the societal integration of former combatants.

Overview of Part II The second part of the book reflects upon a society involved in active protracted political conflict (Israel). It presents and explores the experiences of Israeli Jewish and Arab/Palestinian scholars, practitioners and social activists who are involved in policy planning and change efforts. This section portrays and critically examines researchers-practitioners’ attempts to actually build joint spaces of constructive encounters in a complex divided Israeli society, engulfed by active protracted conflict. Part II opens with chapter 9 that briefly sketches the history of the protracted political Israeli-Palestinian conflict and positions it within the context of Israel’s divided society. The next chapter by Reuven Gal describes a unique experience shared during a trip to Northern Ireland at the heights of “The Troubles” period, by a mixed group of Israeli Jewish and Palestinians co-existence activists. The intensive visit provided an exceptional occasion for the participants to reflect upon their own Israeli case. The chapter demonstrates the importance of a transformative experience and a vicarious learning as a vital component in developing as a co-existence activist. It contains reports from several of these Israeli activists, twenty-five years after their initial exposure to the Northern Ireland experience. The next three chapters revolve around educational initiatives at an academic institution aimed to transform Jewish-Arab relations in shared spaces of natural encounter. Amitay, Arieli and Dar present in chapter 11 a unique model of practice for cultivating knowledge and skills for working in a diverse social environment in academia. It involved a group of junior and senior staff members embracing an approach of a cooperative action study based on partnership, flattening of hierarchy and knowledge production within the group through a process of reflection. Abboud Armaly, Arieli and Friedman portray in chapter 12 a ‘grass roots’ effort to improve intergroup relations and create the conditions for dialogue between Jewish students and Arab/Palestinian students studying at an academic institution in Israel. Chapter 13 by Tannous Haddad and Tzischinsky reports on a practice-oriented intervention within a research seminar as a natural encounter of Palestinian and Jewish college students, all citizens of Israel, who were engaged in cross-cultural research of

1 Introduction to Track III Perspectives

9

sleep disorders while also undergoing a group process based on the narrative model of intergroup-relations. Kuttner presents in chapter 15 an extensive training for Jewish and Arab changeagents in one of the Northern districts in Israel. It emphasizes the need for leadership training while building capacity for dialogue and constructive conflict engagement. The training model empowers participants, agents of change from among officials and residents, effects social change, in particular in the context of Jewish-Arab relations and the development of a shared society. The final chapter by Jakob Sadeh tackles the query: what type of intergroup contact should be pursued to fulfill the promise of workplaces as peacebuilding spaces, where ongoing contact between groups in conflict lead to changes in attitudes, emotions and power-relations? The author responds to this question on the basis of two separate studies: a 15-month-ethnography in an organization that applies the JointProjects Model and an interview-based research, in a work context that applies the Confrontation Model. This book provides insights into the gains, strengths and limitations of different attempts to transform relations among “adversaries” in real life settings: work, public spaces and communities. Some future challenges of Track III approaches are identified to overcome the tremendous tasks facing local leaders and community activists in post-conflict contexts and active conflicts arenas. These reflections by scholars and practitioners are a testament to the interesting learning journey they have undertaken often in difficult circumstances. We invite the readers to join the authors on this intriguing voyage of transforming protracted political conflicts in post-conflict and active conflict societies.

References Bar-Tal, D. (Ed.). (2011). Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological perspective. New York: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834091 Bekerman, Z. (2018). Working towards Peace through Education: The Case of Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 6 (1), 75–98. Retrieved from https://searchproquest-om.ezproxy.yvc.ac.il/docview/2056426456?accountid=27657 Brewer, J.D. (2010). Peace Processes: A Sociological Approach, Polity Press, Cambridge. Coleman, P. T. (2000). Intractable Conflict. In M. Deutsch & P. Coleman (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (pp. 428–450). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Desivilya Syna, H. (2020). Diversity Management in Places and Times of Tensions: Engaging Inter-group Relations in a Conflict-Ridden Society. Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37723-6 Desivilya Syna, H. & Rottman, A. (2012). The role of power asymmetry sensitivity in Jewish Arab partnerships. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 30 (2): 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21058 Desivilya, H. and Palgi, M. (2011). Building Academics-Practitioners Partnership as Means for Generating Usable Knowledge. In H. Desivilya Syna and M. Palgi (eds.). The paradox in

10

Helena Desivilya Syna, Geoffrey Corry

partnership: The role of conflict in partnership building. (pp. 128–159). Bentham Science e-Books. http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/content.php?9781608052110 Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Relational inequality, collective action, and social change revisited. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6), 451–466. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12001550 Dudouet, V. and Dressler, M. (2016), From Power Mediation to Dialogue Support: Assessing the European Union’s Approach to Multi-Track Diplomacy, Berghof Foundation. Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (2001). The Negotiation of Purpose in Multi-Organizational Collaborative Groups. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00241 Federer, J., Palmiano. J., Pickhardt, P. Lustenberger, C., Altpeter, K. Abatis (2019), Beyond the Tracks? Reflections on Multitrack Approaches to Peace Processes, Consortium of Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Center for Security Studies ETH Zurich, Folke Bernadotte Academy and Swiss Peace. FriedmanV.J., Simonovich, J., Bitar, N., Sykes, I., Aboud-Armali. O., Arieli, D., Hadad, L., Rothman, J., Shdema, I. & Dar, M. (2019). Self-in-field action research in natural spaces of encounter: inclusion, learning, and organizational change. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2019(1), 17214. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.17214abstract Göldner-Ebenthal, K. and Dudouet, V. (2017). From Power Mediation to Dialogue Support: Assessing the European Union’s Capabilities for Multi-Track Diplomacy, Berghof Foundation. Hancock, L. and Christopher Mitchell, C. (2007). Zones of Peace, Kumarian Press. Kriesberg, L. (1998). Coexistence and the reconciliation of communal conflicts. In E. Weiner (Ed.), The handbook of interethnic coexistence (pp. 182–198). Continuum Press. Lederach, J.P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, United States Institute of Peace Press. Montville, J.V. (1987). The Arrow and the Olive Branch: A Case for Track Two Diplomacy, in John W, McDonald and Diane B Bendahmane (Eds), Conflict Resolution: Track Two Diplomacy. Center for the Study of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Service Institute, US Department of State. Paolini, S., Wright, S., Dys-Steenberger, O., and Favara, I. (2016). Self‐Expansion and Intergroup Contact: Expectancies and Motives to Self‐Expand Lead to Greater Interest in Outgroup Contact and More Positive Intergroup Relations. Journal of Social Issues, 72(3),450–471. Pruitt, D. G., & Olczak, P. V. (1995). Beyond Hope: Approaches to Resolving Seemingly Intractable Conflict. In B. B. Bunker, J. Z. Rubin, & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Raz Rotem, M., Arieli, D., and Desivilya Syna, H. (2021). Engaging complex diversity in academic institution: the case of "triple periphery" in a context of a divided society. Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 38(4), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21305 Rouhana, N. and Kelman, H.C. (1994). Promoting Joint Thinking in International Conflicts: An Israeli-Palestinian Continuing Workshop, Journal of Social Issues, 50 (1), 157–178. Schäfer, S.J., Kauff, M., Prati, F. Kros, M., Lang, T., and Christ, O. (2021). 1Does negative contact undermine attempts to improve intergroup relations? Deepening the understanding of negative contact and its consequences for intergroup contact research and interventions. Journal of Social Issues, 1–10. Shotter, J. & Tsoukas, H. (2014). Performing phronesis: on the way to engaged judgment. Management Learning, 45(4),377–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507614541196 Syna Desivilya, H. (2004). Promoting Coexistence by Means of Conflict Education: The MACBE Model. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (2), pp. 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.00224537.2004.00115.x Van Tongeren, P. (1999), People Building Peace: 35 Inspiring Stories from around the World, European Centre for Conflict Prevention Utrecht.

Part I: Transforming from below the Post-Armed conflict phase in Northern Ireland

Geoffrey Corry

2 Post-Agreement Northern Ireland: a slow generational change or a peace process in crisis? Abstract: Northern Ireland is a binary identity conflict arising from four centuries of polarisation fuelled by land dispossession, religious sectarianism, a clash of nationalisms and collective narratives. Belfast as a city exemplifies physical segregation on the ground and more recently the erection of ‘peace walls’. The Belfast Good Friday Agreement recognised the two identities of Britishness and Irishness through the principle of parity of esteem but this has been slow to percolate down to Track III without structural change. Community workers have attempted to transform relationships through inter-communal dialogue but the peace agreement is being destablished by Brexit and the slow working out of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Keywords: faultline, binary identity conflict, segregation, collective narratives, power sharing, transforming narratives

Reflecting on the centenary commemorations of the 1921 partition of Ireland that created the statelet of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, play-writer Rosemary Jenkinson (Irish Times, 2021) commented: Northern Ireland is 100 years old, but at times [it] feels as though it was born in the 17th century. In this country, the line between past and present is fragile; history is alive here; yesterday is today. The ghosts of the past exist in the mind and in physical form.

Why does the past continue to remain alive in the present and in the hearts and minds of ordinary people in Northern Ireland? Before the Troubles erupted, Andrew Boyd (1969, p. 203), a Belfast trade unionist asked something similar: “Why is bigotry carried so relentlessly, like a hereditary disease, from generation to generation?” His research showed attacks on homes, waves of religious bigotry and sectarian outbreaks against workers in the shipyards recurring about every twenty years since the 1850’s. It may help to explain how a protestor was heard shouting at a 1973 rally: “To hell with the future, let’s get on with the past!” (Sebenius & Curran 2008). One loyalist described it like not being able to see a way forward “because we are stuck in the past” with questions of identity (Island 102, p. 25). There is no simple answer to how the complexities of hate, bigotry and enmity get carried in political culture, in the memory and emotional DNA across the generations in a deeply divided society. Rita Rogers (1990, p. 93) named it as the intergenerational transmission of historical enmity. How far does it go back? It involves the weight of at least four centuries of history going back to Reformation times. History https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-002

14

Geoffrey Corry

converges into the present because it still lives emotionally in people’s lives through fear and mistrust of the other on both sides of the community as well as culturally in the form of myths and symbols. Through stories, collective memory, poetry and songs told by generations of families to their children, they speak of historic grievances, anger over unresolved political issues, family trauma and the collective suffering “at the hands of the other”. They are all connected to the violent suffering of the past as well as the threat of losing identity. The Ulster historian ATQ Stewart (1977, p. 183) explored how the form and course of a conflict is determined “by patterns concealed in the past rather than those visible in the present”. He made an analogy with the San Andreas Fault in California. Citizens did not know when the unstable Earth’s crust would break out in an earthquake (1906). In the same way, the eruption of the civil rights movement on the streets of Derry in 1969 was totally unexpected. That protest turned out to be a seismic shift in the tectonic plates along the Faultline between the Green and Orange communities. It was one of the starting points of the Troubles (1969–98). Five layers of the Faultline are visualised in Figure 2.1 of the enduringly deep sectarian polarisation growing over four centuries: land conquest, religious identity, nationalism, the narratives that sustain heroic collective myths and finally the way sectarianism gets built into politico-religious segregation on the ground. The fears of being overwhelmed or being encroached on by the ‘other’ fed the sectarianism that has broken out in each generation and in turn consolidated the collective sense of victimhood and dehumanisation experienced over the years.

Faultline of NI binary identity conflict 5. Local segregation 4. Collective narrative 3. Nation 2. Religion 1. Land

Catholic housing estates & church managed schools GAA football/hurling Collective suffering and sacrifice arising from humiliation and sense of victimhood Home Rule 1886 movement & growth of Irish nationalism Roman Catholic priests emerge as community leaders Native Irish grievance over defeat and dispossession of land

400 years of polarisation in the making

Figure 2.1: The Faultline of the Northern Ireland binary identity conflict.

Protestant housing estates & church controlled schools Soccer, cricket & rugby Collective superiority with glorious victories ‘under siege’ and sense of entitlement 1912 Anti-Home Rule Covenant to maintain union with Britain Congregational-based Protestant churches with links to Orange Order Planter/Settlers take over fertile lands in Ulster in 17th + 18th Centuries

2 Post-Agreement Northern Ireland

15

From a conflict resolution perspective, Northern Ireland (NI) can best be described as a binary identity conflict, a ‘them’ and ‘us’ between two opposed and very different self-sustaining white Christian english speaking tribes of Catholics (Green) and Protestants (Orange). Volkan (2014, p. 30) uses the metaphor of two large-group tents standing side by side, strong and sturdy in their ethnocentrism when led by powerful charismatic leaders. Each community has not assimilated the other. But it is too simplistic to see religion as the single marker of what is primarily a political and ideological conflict between unionism and nationalism. Since no racial colour acts as the identity marker, the job of sussing out “who digs with the wrong foot” becomes a skill of detecting social and cultural cues: one’s name, school, place of residence, pronunciation of certain words, the games you play or the newspaper you read all become tell-tale signs of ‘otherness’ (Elliott, 2000 p. 438). The foundations of the cleavage were laid in the Ulster plantation of the 17th Century when tenant farmers and small freeholders came across the narrow sea channel from the over-populated lowlands of Scotland to become part of the next colonising wave of north-east Ireland and then further into the north-west. Most were attracted by the offer of free fertile land that arose from land confiscations from local Irish farmers following the defeat of Gaelic chieftain Hugh O’Neill in 1603 who challenged the power of the Tudor Queen Elizabeth I. The plantations were organised and managed very successfully by British state ‘undertakers’ during the 17th century. The Scots continued their chain migration of extended families for another 200 years bringing their dogged self-reliance, realism, capacity for hard work and “unflagging determination to defend what they had gained” (Moody, 1974, p. 7). What gave the settler community its sharp edge was their Presbyterian congregational Calvinism – brought to Scotland by John Knox (1513–72) – as opposed to a softer episcopalian Anglicanism brought to other parts of Ireland by English settlers. On the native Irish side, their identity derived from Celtic peoples who came from continental Europe way back in the Iron Age around 500–300 BC (Mallory 2013). Even though the 9th century Viking raids and the 12th century feudal Norman lordship brought newcomers to the land, Ulster remained strongly Gaelic in mores and culture through assimilation. This is one reason why the 17th century land plantations came as a shock. With the flight of the defeated Hugh O’Neill to the continent in 1607, the native Irish in Ulster were left leaderless and the old Celtic social system crumbled: “they held desperately to the one remaining badge of their identity, the Roman Catholic faith” (Akenson, 1992, p. 107). When the lands of the Gaelic lords were confiscated, they took refuge in the mountains of Tyrone with a deep sense of grievance. Most of the pre-plantation population stayed on to work the fields of the colonial settlers with some being assimilated. The sharp line of division in the 17th century became religion and not language: “The dispossessed did not give up their [Catholic] faith. They clung to it more tenaciously as the badge of their former status and the explanation of their unjust deprivation (Stewart, 1977, p. 26).” Religion and land came together when the anti-Catholic

16

Geoffrey Corry

‘Penal Laws’ were passed in 1695 which reduced Catholics to compliant subjects and deprived them of the right to purchase freehold lands. While it was only partially successful, religion was again mobilised in the 1800’s. Protestant tenants and landowners joined the Orange Order secret society to defend their lands and increasingly prosperous industrial towns through a sacred anti-Popery cause around the myth of the Pope being an anti-Christ (Higgins & Brewer, 2004, p. 108).

Clash of unionism and nationalism The third layer of the Faultline emerged in the last quarter of the 19th Century arising from the clash of Protestant unionism and Catholic nationalism in the two crucial general elections of 1885 and 1886. Going on in the background were three important social and economic developments for the north east (Wright, 1996): (1) the extension of the franchise to adult male labourers and small farmers bringing a 200% increase in the electorate; (2) the growth in Belfast’s population resulting from industrialisation and new markets in the British Empire; (3) the evangelical revival experienced within Presbyterianism based on a biblical crusade against Catholic belief. It was the Home Rule crisis of 1886 that sustained and deepened the identity Faultline. The failure by Irish nationalists led by Daniel O’Connell to achieve repeal of the 1800 Act of Union in the 1830’s led to a new popular wave of catholic nationalism in the 1870s – mainly led by Catholic clergy – demanding ‘home rule’ independence from Westminster (Walker, 1996). Nationalists won 84 seats out of 103 across the island in the 1886 Westminster election. This frightening outcome for Ulster Protestants posed a real threat of becoming a minority on the island and they immediately closed ranks to defend the Union by forming the Ulster Unionist Council. As descendants of the colonial settlers, their perpetual fears and chronic insecurity of being ‘under siege’ from Catholics were once again brought to the surface (Stewart, 1977). What made it even more uncertain was whether they could rely on British state power to support them because the Liberal prime minister William Gladstone backed Home Rule for Ireland. The Home Rule nightmare for unionists returned again in 1912 when another Liberal prime minister Herbert Asquith introduced the third Home Rule Bill. This time it was more traumatic because the House of Lords had lost their power of veto. Almost the entire male Protestant population signed ‘Ulster’s Solemn League and Covenant’ on 28th September 1912 and the women signed a similar Declaration. It spoke of Home Rule being “subversive of our civil and religious freedom” and threatened to use “all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy”. In the weeks before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, Home Rule became an Act but the Irish nationalists agreed it could be put on hold. Nevertheless, it dominated unionist politics and led to the partition of Ireland in 1921 and the creation of the NI parliament for a six county Ulster. For the next fifty years, unionists

2 Post-Agreement Northern Ireland

17

were now in control of a majoritarian government that catholic nationalists felt excluded from as a minority. They characterised it as an ‘Orange state’ (Bew, 2007).

Collective narratives This all pervasive split between two nationalisms led to each side developing their separate ethnocentric collective narratives that fed off one another in a circular dynamic of fear and mistrust (Wright, 1996). At the heart of each is an emotional attachment to myth that has developed over the years and coloured by perceptions that are probably not historically accurate. Yet they give meaning to what has been collectively endured at watershed moments in the past. The use of covenantal language in the 1912 Ulster Covenant had biblical echoes and some men signed their name in blood (Akenson, 1992, p. 186). This created the sense of being a ‘chosen people’ through the superior Presbyterian doctrines of predestination and justification not by works but by faith (Faith & Politics Group, 1999). It was attractive to the Ulster Scots for two reasons. First, they believed that God’s revelation comes through faith in the holy scriptures and saves you from evil. They were able to see themselves predestined to virtue. Secondly, once you were ‘saved’ by Christ, you received divine grace and became one of the elect; unfortunately, Catholics were immutably the profane non-elect. This cultivated anti-Catholicism among evangelical Presbyterians by emphasising their exclusive possession of the truth and the purity of their gospel values (Akenson 1992). For Ulster unionists, there are three significant historical events of 1688, 1690 and 1916 that became moments of collective ‘chosen glory’ (Volkan, 2014), those moments when a large group evokes the memory of a glorious event to unite the group and solidify its identity. – The phrase “Don’t be a Lundy”, refers back to Governor Robert Lundy’s betrayal during the siege of Derry in 1688 of wanting to negotiate with the Catholic forces of King James II. The apprentice boys shouted “Shut the gates!” and gave rise to a core unionist slogan of ‘No Surrender’: an unwillingness to compromise. – The glorious moment of 1690 is when King William of Orange, depicted in paintings as a hero on his white horse, defeated the catholic King James II at the Battle of the Boyne. This decisive European battle consolidated ownership of settled land by the Ulster Scots against the Catholic powers of France and Spain. The group memory of this battle gets re-enacted each year on 12th July by the Orange Order’s colourful parades marching along traditional street routes. – The Battle of the Somme in 1916 speaks of the blood sacrifice of an estimated 6,000 young Ulster men in the inferno of the trenches fighting for the British Empire, many of whom wore the Orange sash. This moment is remembered as one of loyalty to Britain and the huge price paid in young blood (Switzer, 2013).

18

Geoffrey Corry

For Irish nationalists, there are moments of collective “chosen trauma” (Volkan, 2014) when the large group remembers traumatic events of emotional and historical significance that provide cohesion. Their collective grievances go back to their shared catastrophe of land dispossession during the plantation process. This fed into resentment at the ‘foreign usurpers and intruders’ but was also fuelled by the suffering from the Penal Laws and the Great Famine (1845–8). Paradoxically, those who feel collectively hurt can construct a sense of non-inferiority by virtue of seeing themselves as victims. “There is something glorious about being an underdog.” (Faith & Politics Group, 1999) It feeds the cult of victimhood. Unlike the Scottish Calvinist commitment to directly hear the ‘Word of God’ by each person reading the Bible, native Irish Catholics had low level literacy. Catholicism was an oral ‘Faith of our Fathers’ and a relational community around the celebration of the Mass. The priest read the scriptures and the Mass carries the strong religious message of sacrifice with the hope of deliverance through suffering and victimhood (Elliott, 2000, p. 160). This provided a moral purpose against ‘the victimiser’. It should be noted that the Republican leader, Padraic Pearse, usurped this sacrificial theme and evoked the power of sacrificial violence when he spoke at the grave of republican O’Donovan Rossa in 1915: “Life springs from death; and from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations.” (Dudley Edwards 2016, p. 279) The onlookers in Dublin laughed at the Irish Volunteers playing soldiers in the 1916 Easter Rising at the GPO in Dublin but, when they were shot by the British Army several weeks later, they became hero martyrs of ‘blood sacrifice’. Huge popular support was unleashed and underpinned the War of Independence from British rule (1919–1921). Sixty years later during the Troubles, ten republican prisoners went on hunger strike. Effectively they hijacked Christian sacrificial imagery and starved to death one by one (1980–1) to become martyrs for the republican cause (Condren, 1995). The silver lining of this tumultuous event was the thousands of Catholic nationalists who walked with the funerals of the hunger strikers and voted for the Sinn Fein political movement, a momentum that led eventually to the IRA ceasefire in 1994. This journey of naming the five deep layers of the Faultline provides a shorthand sketch of the historical contours of the polarised and segregated canyon that ultimately produced 30 years of a protracted sectarian conflict (1969–1998) known locally as The Troubles. While the political violence remained at a low level – apart from the worst year of 1972 – it took its toll on many families and created huge mistrust and deadlock between the Orange and Green communities with lasting resentments of the other. The single identity communities survived within their own self-contained bubble while political leaders gained political power through othering and projecting blame. On the ground, the conflict became socially engineered in urban communities into separate housing and segregated schooling behind peace walls to provide local security. However, all of that produced a deep ‘them and us’ rivalry carried from one generation to another. As young protestant lads said on a BBC documentary (Return to the Bonfire 06/09/2021): “It is bred into you – it’s part of who we are and they won’t take it away from us! We hold it in our hearts and we will not let it go away!”

2 Post-Agreement Northern Ireland

19

This partially answers the question posed at the beginning of this chapter of how bigotry and hate is transmitted across the generations. The big question is how can the binary identity Faultline be deconstructed and melted? Throughout the Troubles, John Hume, the SDLP leader and Nobel Peace Laureate, challenged the binary identity glue by saying: “You cannot eat flags.” He knew that populist narratives supported by symbolic flags and emblems were never going to bring new jobs to high areas of unemployment like his home town of Derry. Hume kept focused on finding political solutions in the back channels [phase 1 in Figure 2.2] by opening a political dialogue with republican Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams in 1986, eventually producing the Hume-Adams plan in 1992. Many of its core concepts were adopted by the Irish and British governments in the Downing Street Declaration (1993) which created the political conditions for bringing violence to an end through the ceasefires (Corry & Hynes, 2015). One big factor in finding a way out of the conflict was the growing recognition of a hurting stalemate (Zartman, 2000) and the realisation there was no military solution. It had to come through the political route. Gusty Spence and David Ervine on the loyalist side nudged the unionist leadership to see the potential of entering into negotiations across the faultline.

1. Bringing violence to an end 1982–1994 – Engagement with paramilitaries – Political dialogue – Creating the political conditions for the ceasefires

Republican & Loyalist CEASEFIRES 1994

The three phases of the Northern Ireland peace process 2. Post-Violence Negotiation Phase 1994–1998 A. Preparing for negotiations B. Mitchell six principles 1996 C. Elections in 1996 D. Inter-party negotiations 1997–8 E. Agreement April 1998

3. Tasks of Post-Agreement phase SHORT TERM / MEDIUM TERM / LONG TERM

A. Maintaining primacy of the political peace process B. Decommissioning of weapons & security/policing reform C. Economic reconstruction D. Rebuilding social capacity

Sustainable Peace

E. Making peace with the Past

Implementing the Belfast GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT (GFA) 1998

Figure 2.2: The three phases of the Northern Ireland peace process and the tasks of the PostAgreement phase.

The republican and loyalist ceasefires of autumn 1994 were unilateral ceasefires and not a negotiated truce. Ending the violence was a huge win for the peace process and opened the door to four years of all-party negotiations [phase 2]. The next big breakthrough came at 5pm in Belfast on Good Friday 1998 through the combined efforts of the Irish and British governments, the NI political parties and the Women’s Coalition – supported by Senator George Mitchell in the chair – in reaching a comprehensive

20

Geoffrey Corry

agreement. It almost did not happen. Unionist leader, David Trimble, courageously accepted a cover letter from UK prime minister Tony Blair that provided an assurance sufficient to get the settlement over the line on the afternoon of Good Friday. The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) marked a rebirth of Northern Ireland through enabling a shift out of binary identity politics into a society based on bi-communal acknowledgement that gives equal dignity to the green and orange cultural traditions. This was legally underpinned by the principle of ‘parity of esteem’, a concept that originated in a civil society initiative called the Opsahl Commission (1993) who held public hearings and focus groups across NI to promote “a process of inquiry, debate and dialogue” (Pollak 1993, p. 394). By acknowledging the legitimacy of the two opposing identities, it guaranteed the right of all NI citizens to define themselves as either British or Irish in perpetuity despite any future political changes. This separated the concept of national identity from that of national territory. The precise wording to give effect to bi-culturalism was in Article 1 (vi). It recognised the “birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may choose”. For the ordinary person, that meant you can hold an Irish or British passport or both. Following the Brexit referendum in 2016, the Irish passport office was inundated with applications for Irish passports. It must be pointed out that GFA was not a settlement of the constitutional question but a comprehensive peace agreement recognising the aspirations of both unionism and nationalism within the status quo constitutional position – namely, Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK. No end state was put in place as part of the compromise. The future will be governed by the principle of consent [Article 1 (ii)] based on a simple majority of 50+1 of NI’s citizens deciding their constitutional future in a referendum. GFA provides for a Border poll if there are indications of majority support for a united Ireland where NI joins the other 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland. However, this formula allows political uncertainty to continue into the future particularly where the demographics remain fluid with unionism losing its majority position. Loyalists on the Protestant side of the conflict don’t use the term ‘conflict resolution’ because they don’t see GFA as a resolution of the constitutional issue. The journey of implementing key sections of the GFA [tasks A + B in Figure 2.2] took a further nine years of sustained high-level engagement by the Irish and British governments, working together with the main NI political parties. It is estimated that the British prime minister Tony Blair spent one third of his time and the Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern spent half of his time nudging the peace process forward in a pragmatic way. It was fortunate that their three consecutive terms in office ran parallel with each other allowing them to develop a warm constructive political relationship. Without that close inter-governmental cooperation, GFA would probably have stumbled. Based on Lijphart’s (1999) concept of consociation, the power-sharing Executive guaranteed the inclusion in government of minority parties from both sides of the binary. Ministerial posts were shared out on a proportional basis through the d’Hondt principle. However, the power-sharing experience for the first ten years proved to be

2 Post-Agreement Northern Ireland

21

a rocky one with parties feeling forced to live together through mandatory coalition with minimum goodwill between them. Within four years, it was suspended on three occasions, the latter for three years. Many contentious issues had to be managed: localised rioting over flags and parades, the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, police reform as well as the stalemate.

Implementing the peace Agreement from below The GFA bi-communal principle of parity of esteem and mutual respect needs social support from below for it to percolate down to Track III and become active in intercommunal situations. Identity change cannot be directed from the top-down because it is a slow process of positive social interaction within and between the two communities. It certainly involves political, behavioural and generational change. To expect post-armed-conflict attitudes and beliefs to change rapidly is not realistic when nationalist and unionist political leaders ‘up on the hill’ at Stormont have not been able to work out together what the concept of parity of esteem means for civil society. However, both local and Stormont leaders who support the peace process are up against the systemic nature of sectarianism that is structured into everyday life through peace walls, segregated residential housing and segregated schooling. In addition, lack of economic recovery, continued poverty and disadvantage all continue to play a part in allowing widespread sectarian attitudes to have oxygen. The identity crisis remains the root cause of sectarianism which in turn drives segregation. There are times like the flags dispute in 2012 and the Brexit situation in 2018–23 when local threats spill over into paramilitary-style actions that exert a layer of coercive control in their own communities (Panel 2016). This happens when the unionist community sense their identity is coming under threat and the nationalist community sense the re-imposition of partition. Yet, in between these tense moments, many people get on with their life not seeing sectarianism as a major concern. They know it exists but it is less of a problem than in the past. They don’t really want to acknowledge it (Island 102). Or does it amount to sectarian blindness towards the other because ordinary people are unable to transcend their binary identity narrative?

Faultline Layer 5: Transforming structural segregation on the ground If you were a nineteen year old born in the Lower Falls in West Belfast, the chances are you would have grown up Catholic and been a republican in the early years of the Troubles, probably joining the IRA as a volunteer paramilitary. Whereas, if you

Geoffrey Corry

NI Post-armed-conflict Pyramid

‘The folks on the Hill’ at Stormont: Mandatory power sharing

TRACK II Web of relationships between civil society leaders

TRACK III Voluntary community groups Sports, youth, men’s & women’s Clubs Grassroots leaders in neighbourhoods Families

PSNI reformed police service

Civil Society sectors Business & Trade unions

Sports

Youth

Paramilitarism ‘uncivil society’ social excluded alienated groups

Single identity Communities A

Professional groups

Church leaders

Media

PEACE WALLS

22

Academics

NGOs

layer Single identity Communities B

Grassroots “Ordinary citizens”

‘uncivil society’ – Crime gangs – ‘Mad dogs’ lone wolves

Figure 2.3: Northern Ireland Track III Post-armed-conflict Pyramid (1998 to present day). Source: Adapted from IMTD model of McDonald & Diamond (1996), Lederach pyramid (2005) and Liechty (2001).

were born half a mile away on the Shankill Road, the chances are you would have grown up Protestant and probably joined the loyalist UVF or UDA paramilitaries. Unless of course you are lucky to get a place at university and for the first time meet someone from the other community. Group categorisation and identification are made at birth and maintained throughout life within the two self-sustaining Orange and Green communities. Flags and painted kerbstones mark the neighbourhood you are entering while murals on large gable walls depict scenes of suffering and resistance connected to the struggle of that community (Shirlow, 2008). Engineered into the built environment of Belfast city and other urban areas, segregation remains one of the most significant challenges for policy makers and community leaders who are constrained by social control, peer conformity and sectarian intimidation. Segregation is the outcome of decades of sectarian social categorisation resulting from twenty-five years of intense periods of violence – bombs, bullets, sectarian killings, local intimidation and fear between Orange and Green at both state and civil society levels. The IRA violence and British counter-insurgency interrupted democracy and strengthened polarisation, leading voters to evacuate the middle ground to give allegiance to either unionist or nationalist/republican parties. Neils, Cairns & Hewstone (2004) summarised four main forms of ethno-sectarian segregation that limit opportunities in Belfast for inter-group contact and people going beyond their single identity boundary. First comes segregation in sport. GAA games are almost exclusively played and watched by Catholics while rugby and hockey are mainly Protestant. Soccer can create moments of tension when groups turn up wearing Glasgow Rangers or Celtic jerseys. Secondly, segregation affects personal relationships.

2 Post-Agreement Northern Ireland

23

The disturbing reality is that most personal friends come from their own religious community and only 5% of marriages cross community lines. This can mainly be explained by the third factor: the prevalence of segregated residential housing. About 35% to 40% of households live in segregated neighbourhoods while more than 50% live in mixed neighbourhoods. However, when we look at public housing, 70% of it consists almost entirely of the same identity living in divided neighbourhoods. But as one former republican said: “I don’t know anyone around here who wants to move into a mixed area – there’s too much hurt to be gone through yet.” (Island 102, p. 28) There is a natural link between segregated housing and the fourth factor of where young people go to school. Today 94 per cent (Nolan 2014, p. 120) of children attend either all-protestant or all-catholic schools at both primary and secondary level. Only 11% attend integrated schooling for which there is a growing demand but not enough integrated places to meet parental wishes. Integration faces resistance from the Catholic church, a historic stance that goes back to the foundation of NI in 1921 because of the threat of assimilation through the school system. A more successful attempt at cooperation has been ‘shared education’ partnerships where local facilities are shared between the two systems of schooling.

Peace walls The first ‘peace walls’ – officially called peacelines – were built by the military to separate a number of Catholic and Protestant residential areas in Belfast following the outbreak of the Troubles in 1969. Two decades later, they had grown to 14 peacelines. Today, there are over 100 peace lines and physical barriers separating communities. The long wall on Cupar Street that strategically divides the Shankill from the Falls has become a popular tourist attraction. Yet for the mainly unionist people on the Shankill side, it fulfils the purpose of blocking the expansion of Catholic nationalists in West Belfast into derelict land in their area. Hard line loyalists are likely to say ‘not an inch’ because peacelines are about holding on to territory: ‘What we have we hold!’ The term ‘Peace Wall’ covers all kinds of physical barriers at interface areas and contested spaces – including walls, gates and security barriers (Byrne et al., 2015). Communities are also kept apart in less obvious ways, where motorways, shopping centres, dense foliage and/or vacant and derelict landscapes have been used to define the perimeters of particular communities. Since they are the ultimate symbolic act of reconciliation between two communities, the NI Executive’s objective is to remove all peace walls by 2023. But that deadline is clearly unrealistic. It was part of a strategy called Together Building a United Community (T:BUC 2013) and based on the assumption that removing interface barriers is not something that can be achieved without engagement with and consent of the people who live there. The Belfast Interface Project has involved the communities in creative conversations of what happens when

24

Geoffrey Corry

the walls come down. A number of local communities in Derry and Belfast have produced phased plans to reduce and eventually remove barriers (Nolan, 2014, p. 70). A recent survey showed many interface communities remain divided over removing the barriers. While 49% of residents wanted their nearest peaceline to come down at some time in the near future, as many as 42% of people preferred the walls to remain in their area (Ipsos MORI poll 2020). One big concern is security and the potential for violence emanating from ‘the other’ community but this could be alleviated by effective community policing and the greater use of CCTV in the event of the walls being removed. Yet many loyalists no longer see the purpose of the walls as being about safety but ensuring their identity is not weakened (Island, 102). Community workers on both sides are comfortable with doing ‘single identity’ work which “allow people not to have to confront our communal divisions” (Island 102, p. 28). What happens if each sector remains in their own bubble not connecting and talking to each other? Over a third of participants reported never having had any interaction with the community on the other side.

Tackling Paramilitarism The end of the Troubles did not lead to a complete disbanding of paramilitary groups on the ground following the decommissioning of weapons. A layer of paramilitary activity continues to pervade mainly working class communities in urban areas [see Figure 2.3]. The positive is that the older leadership of republican and loyalist paramilitaries who served time in prison did not go back to the gun again and have supported the peace process at local level. But the younger generation who are living in interface areas and disadvantaged communities have found themselves involved in ‘recreational rioting’ or public disturbances. Already suffering from social exclusion, they are vulnerable to recruitment from residual paramilitary groups and organised criminal gangs in these communities. Incredibly, the suicides of young men tend to go unreported and now outnumber the 3,658 who died in the Troubles. In working class areas, male school leavers aged between 14 and 19 enter the bottom of the labour market without vocational skills (Pivotal, 2021). There are less openings for them as apprentices in declining industries and they are prone to become long-term unemployed. Derick Wilson (Campbell et al., 2016) wants a greater effort to be made to connect these young people to meaningful community activities on their street. At the strategic level, the question is being asked by the ‘Fresh Start’ Panel (2017, 1.6,) working on the disbanding of paramilitaries about those who are engaged in illegal drug trafficking: “When is society prepared legally, socially and politically going to stop treating the remaining groups as paramilitary organisations and, instead, treat them as organised crime gangs?” They concluded that no-one is in a position to compel such groups to disband. They assert the challenge is to create the

2 Post-Agreement Northern Ireland

25

conditions in which groups would transform, wither away, completely change and lose their significance. It is not surprising that the disadvantaged and alienated local communities now dominated by paramilitarism were those worst hit by violence during the period of the Troubles.

Transforming relationships This review of the continued presence of segregation on the ground shows the near impossible challenge for civil society organisations to dissolve segregated infrastructure in the absence of top-down structural change and an economic recovery that lifts all boats. In these circumstances, it would be best for Track III community and civil society organisations to concentrate on transforming inter-communal relationships if they want to overcome orange/green binary politics. Over the years, civic leadership has risen to this challenge in providing non-political spaces where the work of relationship-building can be pursued with freedom and creativity (IICM, 2021). Opened in a former Presbyterian church in 2014, the Duncairn Centre is an example of a ‘shared space’ complex that provides a platform for arts and culture groups in an interface area of North Belfast. The groups working at the interface between single identity communities are great examples where community leadership and ‘ordinary people’ have emerged spontaneously to foster cross-community linkages and resolve local difficulties. Community workers have dampened rumours through staying in contact with each side through mobile phones (Jarman,2006)). Other organisations have developed home-grown leadership through leadership and conflict skills training. While they may only have a marginal clout on decision making power, they were able to generate momentum and pressure from below to deal with specific local issues. Often it is clergy and community workers who are good listeners and are comfortable being ‘between’ groups who give a human face to the other and enable people-to-people or community-to-community dialogue activities. NI is not a poor part of the world (Byrne, 2011). Resources are available through the statutory Community Relations Council, the EU peace funds and other foundations [see chapter 3] to support local initiatives, to fund community relations projects and innovative cross-community projects (Cochrane, 2006; Byrne, 2011). One of the participants at the community think tanks hosted by Farset [see Case Study 7.1] stated: “Unless people interact, they will never start along the road to understand the other (Island, 102:10).” The continued failure by single-identity leaders and local politicians to gain an understanding of the ‘other side’ and an unwillingness to understand each other’s background, culture and viewpoints is a major stumbling block to furthering local inter-communal communication and cooperation. Is this a fear of being seen talking to the ‘other side’? – that it creates the perception of accepting them or giving in to them, that it would be seen as an unforgiveable compromise?

26

Geoffrey Corry

It is suggested by the same Farset participants that there will be no communal breakthrough until the binary identities have been reconciled. That does not mean one being submerged into the other but being assured that one’s identity – Britishness or Irishness – is not under threat and being taken away from you. To the contrary (Island 102:27), “the more confident [you] are in [your] own identity, the more accommodating [you] will be towards someone else’s.” One loyalist believes (Island 102:24): “People need to feel safe within their own identity. . .and if they have the perception that it is being eroded, they will defend it to the last nail.” A key lesson from the Irish peace process is that reconciliation is not an event but a relational process of acknowledging the authenticity and validity of the fears in the other side’s narrative and then reaching out to the other through symbolic gesture or an action that understands the other’s concern. In the Farset dialogue (Island 102:7), one loyalist was honest in stating “We will probably never come to a mutual understanding of what happened. . .but somewhere down the line we need to have those uncomfortable conversations.” It may involve one community acknowledging responsibility for the other’s suffering in an interactive relational way. But who goes first to acknowledge the other in the public domain? Unionist leaders waited during 2021 – the centenary of partition – for nationalist and republicans to recognise the legitimacy of the state of Northern Ireland created from partition in 1921. This spoke of their need for legitimacy and a public reassurance from the nationalist community about holding onto their British identity. But there was no acknowledgement from republicans or support for an act of joint commemoration of the founding of Northern Ireland. In turn, the northern nationalist community waited for some understanding and acknowledgement from unionism of the suffering and pain they experienced as a minority in the first fifty years of the NI state. But nothing came to satisfy their need to be released from a historic sense of exclusion. Each side craves for collective legitimacy and reciprocal acknowledgement. The most amazing moment was in June 2012 when Martin McGuinness, the Sinn Fein leader and former IRA commander, shook hands with Queen Elizabeth II at the Lyric Theatre in Belfast. He took a huge risk for reconciliation safe in the belief that his people would follow him but it was also a warm outreach by the Queen to the republican community in an act of political forgiveness for what happened during the Troubles. It was only possible upon the implementation of the GFA by Sinn Fein. The late Seamus Mallon (2019, p. 158), an elder nationalist SDLP statesman, called for a ‘shared home place’ that can be the best of British and the best of Irish now that the pressure of polarising violence has ended. This implies that NI can be an inclusive society seeing each other as co-equal partners. In response, former Unionist leader Mike Nesbitt believes the debate from the republican side must stop chanting “Brits Out” and recognise that unionists belong in Ulster. Mallon understands that call because there were times when he did not feel at home living in his mainly Protestant village of Markethill. Consequently, each identity must feel safe, secure and comfortable living in their home place for them to feel a sense of belonging.

2 Post-Agreement Northern Ireland

27

The rise of the middle ground Out of a population of 1.6 million, over 600,000 people have been born in NI since the signing of the Belfast Agreement twenty-five years ago. Those aged 20–24 on the electoral register voted for the first time in the Assembly elections in May 2022. It made a generational difference in marginal seats. Identity and culture do not have the same connotations for the ‘peace generation’ who have grown up in a secular and digital world. Many are determined not to be held back by the old binary identity politics at Stormont where you vote negatively to keep another party out. Instead, the babes of the peace process are more likely to identify themselves as ‘Northern Irish’ and focus on social and economic issues. When asked the question “What are you?”, they are likely to avoid a direct reply and say “I don’t know”, meaning neither Catholic nor Protestant (BBC 2021). The demographics are also changing. The trend is away from a Protestant majority. In the 2011 census, Protestants for the first time fell below 50 per cent except for two counties, Antrim and Down in the north-east. When the results of the 2021 census become known, it may emerge that Belfast will have a Catholic majority. Belfast has emerged as a shared city where the population is younger and more confident. Another factor is that 63% of students who study in Britain, mainly unionists, do not return home after attending universities in Scotland and England because of better work opportunities elsewhere or they don’t want to raise their family in NI. Consequently, the young unionist brain drain contributes to a declining protestant and aging population while nationalist graduates stay in NI. In addition, new nationalities from Eastern European and Asian countries have come into NI to create more diverse communities. The identity pyramid in Figure 2.4 shows the green CNR (Catholic/Nationalist/ Republican) community and the orange PUL (Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist) community – a short hand way among community workers to describe the modern complexity of the two separate civil societies (Power, 2011, p. 76). Opinion polls are indicating the emergence of a middle ground in NI politics who want to live in a shared space and calling themselves ‘Northern Irish’ as a shared identity. In the 2019 NI Life and Times survey, 33% of people described themselves as a unionist, 23% as a Nationalist and 39% of people said neither. No party now has a political majority: “we are all minorities now”. Around six out of ten on each side continue to identify themselves as very strong unionists or nationalists, staying rigid in their belonging to each side of the binary. However, Dr Paul Nolan, an expert on demographic social trends, warns of a danger of extrapolating too much from these trends. They do not correspond to the way people actually vote. For example, there is a ‘lost tribe’ of pro-union supporters with a small ‘u’ who are British and not Irish who have abstained from voting in recent years because of disenchantment with party political unionism. Popularly known as ‘garden centre’ unionists, these votes could go back to a liberal UUP

28

Geoffrey Corry

Bridging the Binary Identity Conflict between the Green and the Orange GREEN stands for Irish identity seeking the unity of the island of Ireland 40% The CNR community Segmented identity pyramid

POLARISATION

20% Emerging middle ground Northern Irish identity

Catholic/Nationalist/Republican

ORANGE stands for British identity and continued union with United Kingdom 40% The PUL community

Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist

Figure 2.4: The rise of the middle ground is transforming the binary identity conflict.

moving to the centre ground or to Alliance in the middle. Nolan suggests (Irish Times 05/09/2020) NI is heading more towards a 40-20-40 split – unionists and nationalists will have 40% each and the parties who are less motivated by identity like the Alliance and the Greens will have 20%. Putting all of these trends together, ‘bread-and-butter’ issues of the economy and the welfare state are beginning to see a softening of tribal identity politics. Professor Peter Shirlow (2021) believes the ‘rise of the middle’ shows a growing gap between the people and the traditional binary political machines they once voted for to look after their interests.

The disturbance of Brexit The biggest threat to the post-Agreement peace process has been Brexit – the decision in 2016 by the UK to exit the customs union and single market of the European Union (EU). It has de-stabilised NI politics again by heightening loyalist fears and undermined the direction established in the Good Friday Agreement. MP Claire Hanna (SDLP) expressed the nationalist perspective: “it rips through the complex relationships and delicate equilibrium that allows this place and its people to co-exist and imagine a shared future.” (O’Doherty, 2019, p. 356). In the Brexit referendum, there was a 53% majority of NI voters in favour of remaining in the EU. When the figures are broken down, 88% of nationalists voted to remain within the EU compared with 34% of unionists (Garry, 2017).

2 Post-Agreement Northern Ireland

29

The threat posed by Brexit was to bring back the 1921 land border that had partitioned the island to serve as the new frontier between the EU and the UK. Yet the border had effectively melted away after GFA. Both countries enjoyed the free movement of goods – ‘seamless and frictionless’ – across the 310 mile Border without any customs checks. This was because the EU single market had abolished internal custom posts after 1993 and British army border security posts were dismantled in 2005. In the final negotiations about the Brexit arrangements, the UK and the EU made a compromise not to undermine the Good Friday Agreement and to avoid a land border since there would have been huge difficulties to secure all 208 road crossings. Under the NI Protocol, the border was located in the Irish Sea. It gave NI a unique arrangement of the best of both worlds: to continue to avail of free trade within the EU while also being part of the new UK global trade. For the loyalist and unionist community, the NI Protocol created a constitutional change in NI’s status within the UK because it breaks the free internal flow of goods east/west across the Irish Sea. New customs checks were imposed in January 2021 at the two north-east ports of Larne and Belfast on goods such as meats, medicines and pets. Businesses were insufficiently prepared for the extra bureaucratic paperwork to meet EU country of origin standards. Supply chains within the UK internal market have been affected. A negotiated resolution between the UK and the EU is presently underway. Brexit and the NI Protocol have brought NI dangerously close to a return to the violence of the past which nobody wants. It has raised so many questions about the future. A new generation of loyalists believe it threatens the union with Britain and locks NI into the economic orbit of southern Ireland – a step they vehemently oppose because they fear it will become a stepping stone to political unity with the south. During 2021, loyalist anger spilled onto Belfast streets near interface areas. Trust between the British and Irish governments has also suffered. To add to the uncertainty, the republican community have called for the holding of a border poll on a united Ireland, as provided under the GFA. However, the 2021 Life and Times survey shows that only 25% in NI would vote for a United Ireland while 51% would vote to remain in the UK. Down south, the Irish government has launched a ‘Shared Ireland’ initiative and have ruled out an early push for reunification. They favour playing a long game to ease tensions as well as supporting the principle of consent by both communities. The 2016 Brexit referendum shows there are dangers in using the majoritarian formula unless there has been full preparation in advance with detailed proposals on what is envisaged. A Border poll would have consequences for the whole of Ireland and it is inconceivable that it would be held without advance planning and the cooperation of the British and Irish governments. We leave the last word to the Belfast academic Peter Shirlow who goes for a transactional approach to solving the problem of binary identity; he suggests it is akin to the proverb: ‘It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice’.

30

Geoffrey Corry

References Akenson, D. (1992). God’s Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel and Ulster. Cornell University Press. BBC One Northern Ireland, Spotlight special programme: ‘NI at 100’ by Mark Devenport (20/04/2021). Bew, P. (2007). Ireland: The Politics of Enmity 1789–2006. Oxford University Press. Boyd, A. (1969), Holy War in Belfast. Anvil. Brewer, J. D, Higgins, G., and Teeney, F. (2011). Religion, Civil Society and Peace in Northern Ireland. Oxford University Press. Byrne, J., Gormley-Heenan, C., Morrow, D., and Sturgeon, B. (2015). Public Attitudes to Peace Walls: Survey Results, Ulster University. Byrne, S., (2011). Economic Assistance and Conflict Transformation: Peacebuilding in Northern Ireland. Routledge. Cairns, Ed, (1982). Intergroup conflict in Northern Ireland, in H. Tajfel (ed), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge University Press. Campbell, K., Wilson, D., and Braithwaite, J. (2017). Ending Residual Paramilitary Domination in Northern Ireland? Restorative economic and social inclusion strategies. RegNet Research Paper 123, School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University. Cochrane, F. (2006). Two Cheers for the NGOs: Building peace from below in Northern Ireland, in M. Cox, A. Guelke & F. Stephen, (eds.) A Farewell to Arms? Beyond the Good Friday Agreement (Second Edition 2006). (pp. 253–267). Manchester University Press. Condren, M. (1995). Sacrifice and Political Legitimation: The production of a gendered social order. Journal of Women’s History, 4 (4). Corry, G. (2012). Political Dialogue Workshops: Deepening the Peace Process in Northern Ireland. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30(1), 53–80. Corry, G. and Hynes, P. (2015). Creating Political Oxygen to Break the Cycle of Violence 1981–1994: Lessons from the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Journal of Mediation & Applied Conflict Analysis, 2 (2) www.maynoothuniversity.ie/edward-m-kennedy-institute Coulter, C., Gilmartin, N., Hayward, K., and Shirlow, P. (2021). Northern Ireland A Generation After Good Friday: Lost futures and new horizons in the ‘long peace’. Manchester University Press. Diamond, L. and McDonald, J. (1996). Multitrack diplomacy: A systems approach to peace. West Hartford: Kumarian Press. Dudley Edwards, R. (2016). The Seven: The lives and legacies of the founding fathers of the Irish Republic. Oneworld. Elliott, M. (2000). The Catholics of Ulster: A History. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press. Fitzduff, M. (1996). Beyond Violence: Conflict Resolution Processes in Northern Ireland. United Nations University. Faith and Politics Group (1999). Self-righteous Collective Superiority as a Cause of Conflict. Booklet published privately. Fresh Start Panel [Lord Alderdice John McBurney Prof Monica McWilliams]: The Fresh Start Panel Report on the Disbandment of Paramilitary Groups in Northern Ireland (May 2016) Garry, J. (2017). The EU referendum Vote in Northern Ireland: Implications for our understanding of citizens’ political views and behaviour. Professor of Political Behaviour, Queens’ University Belfast, Knowledge Exchange Seminar Series (KESS) 2017. Higgins, G. and Brewer, J.D. (2004). The Roots of Sectarianism in Northern Ireland, in O. Hargie and D. Dickson (Eds.), Researching the Troubles: Social Science Perspectives on the Northern Ireland Conflict, (107–121). Mainstream Publishing.

2 Post-Agreement Northern Ireland

31

Heatley, C. (2004). Interface: Flashpoints in Northern Ireland, Lagan Books. Hubl, T. (2020). Healing Collective Trauma: A process for integrating our intergenerational and cultural wounds. Sounds True. Island Pamphlets 102 (2012). Towards a Shared Future 2: Confronting Sectarianism. Farset Community Think Tanks Project. IICM, The Unfinished Work of Peace: Consultation Paper. Irish Inter-Church Meeting (2021) Ipsos MORI poll 2020 commissioned by NI Department of Justice on peace walls in interface communities, reported in Belfast Telegraph 09/12/2020. Jarman, N. (2006). Working at the Interface: Good Practice in Reducing Tension and Violence. Institute for Conflict Research, Belfast. Jenkinson, R., Northern Ireland is 100 years old? It feels more like 300. Irish Times 28/ 06/2021. Lederach, J. P. (2005). The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Liechty, J. and Clegg, C. (2001). Moving Beyond Sectarianism: Religion, Conflict and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Colomba Press. Lijphart, A. (1969). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty Six Countries. Yale University Press. Mallon, S. and Pollak, A. (2019). A Shared Home Place. Lilliput Press. Mallory, J.P. (2013). The Origins of the Irish. Thames & Hudson. Moody, T. (1974). The Ulster Question. 1603–1973. Mercier. Niens, U., Cairns, E., and Hewstone, M. (2004). Contact and Conflict in Northern Ireland, in O. Hargie and D. Dickson (Eds.), Researching the Troubles: Social Science Perspectives on the Northern Ireland Conflict. (pp. 123–139). Mainstream Publishing. J. Montville (Eds.), The Psychodynamics of International Relationships. (pp. 91–96). Lexington Books. Nolan, P. (2014). Northern Ireland Peace Monitoring Report, Number 3. Community Relations Council, Belfast. O’Doherty, M. (2019). Fifty Years On. Atlantic Books. Pivotal think tank podcast, Holywell Trust Forward Together (2021). Pollak, A. ed (1993). A Citizen’s Enquiry: The Opsahl Report on Northern Ireland, Lilliput Press. Power, M. (2011). Providing a Prophetic Voice? Churches and Peacebuilding 1968–2005, in M. Power (Ed), Building Peace in Northern Ireland. Rogers, R. R. (1990), Intergenerational Transmission of Historical Enmity, in V. Volkan, D. Julius and Sebenius, J. and Curran, D.F. (2008). “To hell with the future, let’s get on with the past”. George Mitchell in North Ireland. Harvard Business School Case 801–393. Shirlow, P. (2008), Belfast: A segregated city, in C. Coulter and M. Murray (Eds.), Northern Ireland after the Troubles: A society in transition, (73–87). Manchester University Press, Shirlow, P. (2003) Ethno-sectarianism and the reproduction of fear in Belfast. Capital & Class; Summer 80. Stewart A.T.Q. (1977). The Narrow Ground: Aspects of Ulster 1609–1969. Blackstaff Press. Switzer, C. (2013). Ulster, Ireland and the Somme: War Memorials and Battlefield Pilgrimages. History Press Ireland. T:BUC (2013). Together: Building a United Community, Strategy document, Northern Ireland Executive Office. Volkan, V. (2014). Psychoanalysis, International Relations and Diplomacy: A sourcebook on Large-Group Psychology. Karnac.

32

Geoffrey Corry

Walker, B. M. (1996). Dancing to History’s Tune: History, myth and politics in Ireland. Institute of Irish Studies, Queen’s University of Belfast. Wright, F. (1996). Two Lands on One Soil: Ulster politics before Home Rule. Gill & Macmillan. Zartman, I. W. (2000). “Ripeness: The Hurting Stalemate and Beyond”, in Paul C Stern & Daniel Druckman (Eds.), International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War, National Research Council: National Academy Press.

Avila Kilmurray

3 Community-Based peacebuilding: Signals for Track III Abstract: This chapter recognises that ‘communities’, whether of locale or identity, can be contested spaces but considers how community activism can be supported to contribute to peacebuilding through a process of bonding, bridging and linking work. Drawing on the grounded experience of work in Northern Ireland over the years of the conflict, as well as insights from a number of locally-based funder members of the international Foundations for Peace Network (FFP), the chapter argues that if peacebuilding is to be sustainable, it needs to be inclusive in nature. Specific emphasis is placed on the importance of linking community-based peacebuilding with social justice. The pressures on community development workers and activists when addressing peacebuilding issues during periods of open violence and tension are also examined. Based on proven practical experience and reflection, the range of strategies and approaches that civil society organisations can take to promote peacebuilding are identified. Keywords: community-level peacebuilding, contested spaces, single-identity, intercommunity relations, peacebuilding functions Peacebuilding is like housework; if done regularly no one notices, if neglected, everyone notice. – Marina Tabukashvili, Executive Director of the Taso Foundation in Georgia. (O’Prey 2020a)

Marina had a point when describing community level peacebuilding. When carried out regularly there is a normalcy about local peacebuilding work that often means it can be taken for granted, but when it is not in place the potential for violent conflict is as often heightened. This chapter draws on insights from Northern Ireland, but also from the contested contexts within which the member organisations of the Foundations for Peace Network are working, to capture some of the characteristics of community-based peacebuilding and the challenges and opportunities faced. The Network (FFP) was established in 2004 as a peer exchange and learning network for locally based and controlled independent funders, working in violently divided societies. The current member organisations work in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Georgia, Northern Ireland, Serbia, Georgia, Palestine and Nepal.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-003

34

Avila Kilmurray

What do we mean by ‘community’? There is much written about the potential contribution (and disadvantages) of civil society organisations to peacebuilding (Neji, 2018; Cortright et al., 2016) but less that focus on the role of community-driven approaches (Gormally et al., 2022). Haider (2009) usefully defined community-based approaches (CBA) as those that seek “to empower local community groups and institutions by giving the community direct control over investment decisions, project planning, execution and monitoring, through a process that emphasises inclusive participation and management”. This understanding is echoed in the Peace Direct proposition that ‘locally led and owned’ initiatives should be distinguished from both ‘locally managed’ and/or ‘locally implemented’ initiatives, where both the latter are primarily driven by external power and resource-holders (Vernon, 2019). Haider argues that a sense of community ownership contributes to the sustainability of the work and that community-based actions can build trust and social capital as well as preparing communities for the outcome of peace processes. Both Haider and O’Prey (2020a) hold that local communities are best placed to identify their shared needs and prioritise actions necessary to meet them. They also highlight the importance of recognising that communities are not necessarily inclusive or homogeneous in nature. In reality, there are as many definitions of the concept of community as the Innuits have for snow. Arguably the very lack of conceptual clarity contributes to the proliferation of invocations of the notion (Amit, 2002). Although there have been myriad warnings about the dangers of over romanticising the idea of community (Taylor, 2003), the two categories that are useful for this chapter are: – community as locale which includes the sense of neighbourhood place and overlapping relationships; and – community as the clustering of identity, often referred to as associative communities. While communities internally are often contested spaces and places, the impact of violent conflict can serve to fragment and re-form communities into ‘single identity’ entities which result in a conflation between territorial and associative community identities. Thus almost one hundred ‘peace walls’ and barriers still divide the postconflict society of Northern Ireland into patchworks of ‘single identity’ Protestant/ Unionist/Loyalist (PUL) or Catholic/Nationalist/Republican (CNR) communities. There are still certain aspects of diversity within these ‘single identity’ communities (eg. based on gender identity, race, class, etc.) as well as political affiliations, but it can be difficult for individuals to display or voice these differences that are defined primarily by the parameters of the conflict. Any sense of complexity tends to be unwelcome in a situation of escalating fear and violence. Adapting Putnam’s social capital indicators (2001), O’Prey reflects on how ‘single identity’ communities are very often strongly ‘bonded’ but have serious difficulties in

3 Community-Based peacebuilding: Signals for Track III

35

‘bonding’ with other communities of a different identity. Adding the category of ‘linking’ social capital, she describes community-based work in contested societies as encompassing three inter-related layers as set out in Figure 3.1 (O’Prey, 2020a).

BONDING –

BRIDGING –

LINKING –

Building internal relationships and capacity to encourage participation and sense of ownership of the process

With other communities to encourage greater understanding and collaborative work

With external agencies, organisations and political decision makers

Figure 3.1: Three inter-related layers of community-based work in contested societies.

The Communities in Transition programme (2000–2012) came up with detailed reflections on these community dynamics and evaluation criteria for community work in Northern Ireland. Managed by O’Prey, she provided a measurement framework for each of these categories, with conflict-specific issues being included, such as the competition between competing paramilitary groups; the impact of the violence; and the nature of both political tensions and the acceptability (or lack of acceptability) of state agencies in local communities. Violent conflict all too readily sees communities bonding together against ‘the other’ rather than addressing aspects of inclusive community cohesion. An important consideration during periods of protracted conflict is the nature of local leadership and organisation within communities. Haider (2009) touches on this in her reference to the role of traditional elders in Afghanistan, whilst Mohamed and Kising’u consider the issue in the context of Somali elders in Mogadishu (2018). O’Prey (2020a) places an emphasis on the importance of inclusive community structures although there is also recognition of the potential for ‘coercive control’ of local community leadership by dominant paramilitary groups in an area. Community ‘gatekeeping’ can also be exercised by strong individuals who may be politically or otherwise aligned. In short, the nature of communities need to be analyzed with due regard to their experience of the conflict, the conflict narrative that they themselves subscribe to in order to make sense of ongoing circumstances, the prior effectiveness of local community activism and leadership, as well as the community organisation and infrastructure at their disposal. Much also depends on the relationship that local communities have with the state and/or oppositional forces. This analysis will offer a basis for future community-based action.

36

Avila Kilmurray

Supporting inclusive communities However politically aligned communities may be, there is an added value in ensuring that they are inclusive and representative if they are to contribute to peacebuilding and conflict transformation. In the early years of the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland, a number of local communities actually organised household elections to return their community councils (Kilmurray, 2017), although even this exercise became rapidly politicized, with both elected and paramilitary local leaders viewing it as destabilising. At the very least, there must be effort and time invested in local engagement in order to build credible community structures and a local leadership that is broad enough, and has the legitimacy, to address intra and inter community tensions. O’Prey (2020a) offers the following model of community action in Figure 3.2 drawn from her extensive experience of working with local communities. 2. Agreeing an initial Action Plan based on area needs & priorities

3. Providing development support & capacity building

1. Motivating people to set up and join local group

4. Recording small wins & providing monitoring and evaluation

5. Helping the group develop and build sustainability

Figure 3.2: Five elements of community action.

She places a strong emphasis on the inclusion of the full range of opinions and interests in the animation stage of engagement and building relationships, arguing that “inclusivity requires reaching out to people who are apprehensive of involvement as well as to the local ‘gatekeepers’ (whether party political, paramilitaries or simply strong local personalities who wielded power) and is built on developing honest relationships” (O’Prey 2020a, p. 20). In addition to ensuring a local sense of ownership and direction, this allows a greater understanding of the local understanding of the conflict, perceptions of injustice and the ability to assess opportunities for peacebuilding. Inclusion, however, does not just happen. It needs to be fostered and safeguarded. As confidence grows so too does the sharing of experiences about the impact of the conflict – in all their diversity – and the humanising of the hurt and anger that results. Locally based Women’s Groups are a particularly effective means for challenging stereotypes and engaging in reflection and exchange at the pace set by

3 Community-Based peacebuilding: Signals for Track III

37

the participants themselves (Kilmurray, 2017). Examples from Liberia (O’Reilly, 2020) and Sierra Leone (Jusu-Sheriff, 2000) highlight how a local focus can be networked to have a regional and national impact. Ramnarain’s study (2015) in post-conflict Nepal shows the potential flip side of community-based peacebuilding involving women. It points out the importance of taking account of the priorities raised by local women in a holistic manner rather than adopting a narrower peacebuilding lens, such as a sole emphasis on electoral participation. Local communities are not there to be mechanisms for peacebuilding. Instead, peacebuilding and conflict transformation needs to be seen by local activists as a way of improving their lives and enabling them to address the wider menu of social justice issues that are prioritised through action planning. Sustainable peacebuilding needs to be rooted in the most marginalised and disadvantaged communities seeing a peace dividend in any post-conflict scenario. To support this, there is a need for local voice and access to information. The former is important to ensure that community-based priorities reach the agenda of any peace negotiations, with adequate research and evidence to provide the requisite weight to expectations and demands. Accurate information is essential to counter the misinformation and misrepresentation that can so easily occur where various political interests are negotiating, adopting a zero-sum game mindset to outcomes. It is not uncommon for ‘single identity’ communities to be told that ‘they’ are getting more out of the peace than ‘us’, resulting in a political positioning that uses the stoked resentment of local communities to prolong communal divisions. The ability to deliver accurate and trusted information to local community activists can alleviate such situations. It is also crucial that the information is delivered in an accessible manner. A set of ten woodcuts were used to promote local community discussion about the content of the South African Bill of Rights. The Community Dialogue organisation in Northern Ireland rephrased and disseminated the Belfast/ Good Friday Agreement (1998) in ‘everyday’ language for community use. The development and growth of inclusive local community structures allows both early warning signs of potential tensions that could spark further violence, as well as the opportunity to talk through, and hold people to account locally, for negative incidents as they occur. To ensure the sustainability of community relations, activists need to marry the willingness to deal with sensitive and potentially divisive issues with the ability to maintain intra-community relationships. This is no easy task and can be even more difficult if the appropriate skills-training or external facilitation is not put in place. Experience has shown the critical role played by the ‘insider-outsider’ (Kilmurray, 2017) in this regard – an individual who ‘knows’ the thinking of an armed group but has credibility with local people. S/he can interpret perceptions and relay feelings to help arrive at an acceptable resolution that does not put either individual activists or the community project in danger.

38

Avila Kilmurray

Addressing inter-community relations A major consequence of protracted violent conflict is the growth of mutually exclusive narratives of the contested nature of society. This is particularly acute where individuals from ‘the other’ community are displaced and where local communities become increasingly ‘single identity’ in nature. Peace Direct, in a study on local peacebuilding, suggested that relations and trust within and between local communities can readily be improved by local initiatives (Vernon, 2019), citing research from post-war Sierra Leone and the South Sudan (Portals, 2019). Warnings are also sounded, however, about over-exuberant expectations. O’Prey counsels the need for a staged approach to naming and addressing sensitive issues when working on an inter-community basis. Indeed, what was once known as ‘cross-community work’ in Northern Ireland led a number of activists to term it ‘work between very cross communities’. O’Prey holds that attention has to be paid to the confidence that local activists have in articulating their fears and aspirations in ‘mixed’ company. There is also the challenge of bringing people together who may have very different levels of confidence and capacity to express themselves and explain their perspectives. Very often it is the minority, or ‘oppressed’ who may be more articulate in describing their grievances resulting in the contact experience alienating participants with different perspectives. Feelings of alienation can be reinforced where representative local groups include known individuals who are political ex-prisoners and/or ex-combatants, or indeed victims/survivors of violence (O’Prey, 2020b Fisher, Matovic, Walker and Mathews, 2020) refer to the heightened tensions experienced when an NGO brought together Kyrgyz and Uzbek women from across the Kyrgyzstan/Uzbekistan border where the Uzbek women were still frightened of further attacks. It was found that additional preparatory work had to be invested in the Uzbek community. This is not an uncommon experience. Access to space that is seen as non-aligned is important to address some of these issues, but so too is the need to enable the local activists to set both the pace and agenda, identifying issues of common interest and concern that might give rise to win-win potential collaboration. Where sensitive issues are raised it can be beneficial to encourage people to work in small groups, with membership drawn from different communities, to allow them the space to work through scenarios before being open to wider challenge. Low-level external facilitation can help in these situations. As confidence and relationships improve, site visits can be organised to expose people from ‘single identity’ communities to conditions in other areas in order to break down stereotypes and challenge perceptions. Probing behind symbols, tradition and language can also be useful in enhancing understanding about cultural difference. During the early stages of inter-community ‘bridging’ it is especially important to be sensitive to language and symbols which can all too easily allow the initiative to be badged as ‘theirs’ rather than ‘ours’. Community arts approaches can prove useful in exploring the more nebulous concepts such as identity and feelings in a less

3 Community-Based peacebuilding: Signals for Track III

39

confrontationist manner than debate or discussion. Sensitively used, humour can provide the basis for a more inclusive exchange of views. While each conflict carries its own unique DNA, there are aspects that are cross-cutting such as the warring narratives about what is the ‘truth’ of the situation and the difficulty of empathising with the hurt of ‘the other’ community, on the basis that the suffering of ‘our’ community was invariably greater or less deserved. Bringing activists from other post-conflict societies can create greater space for intercommunity reflection, as people can be more open to how ‘outsiders’ see the situation, rather than listening to a local person, who will invariably be seen as aligned. An external voice can reflect on the difficulties and opportunities of peacebuilding in their own societal context and experience, allowing both similarities and differences to be explored. This can create the opportunity and head space for people to look at apparently intractable issues in a different manner. Models and approaches that have proved successful in other societies emerging from conflict cannot be applied wholesale, but can often be adapted or re-modelled for application elsewhere. This is particularly important if win-win strategies are identified, rather than the usual ‘zerosum game’ approach that politicians often engage in – where a perceived ‘win’ for the ‘other’ side is automatically presented as a ‘loss’ for ‘our’ side.

Working within communities during conflict Community-based workers and local activists face particular pressures when working with, and between, local communities over periods of protracted conflict. The danger of ‘burn-out’ requires focused attention of self-care as a tactic of defiance. All too often, as Stephanie Leonard-Wong of ActBuildChange explains: ‘Our identity and value as human beings becomes wrapped up in how good we are at our job’ (Leonard, 2018). When working with people who are experiencing the impact of war these feelings of identity and self-worth are often exacerbated by a sense of guilt and urgency. While this is understandable, it does not ensure effectiveness. It is important that people have the opportunity to stand back and take stock, as well as having some time for themselves and their families. Peacebuilding is more often a marathon than a sprint and benefits from the physical space for refreshment and the mental space for renewal. The other pressure on community-based workers is the need for small networks of trusted advisors. The pressure of constantly analyzing and assessing the political context and the objectives of various stakeholders can be draining, while the consequences of misinterpretation can be dangerous. For this reason, as well as for the sake of reassurance, it is important to draw together a small group of individuals (preferably who have insights into different perspectives of the ongoing conflict) that can be used as sounding boards. Sometimes what workers and activists think they

40

Avila Kilmurray

are hearing is not actually what organisations or other communities are saying. There is a great tendency for single identity entities to speak in a coded manner that is perfectly clear to their supporters, but may be completely opaque to listeners from outside their ‘bubble’ of insiders. Consequently, it can help to have a number of trusted interpreters to ensure clarity of understanding and of any subsequent analysis. Alongside this support network, it can be incredibly useful for workers to have ready access to organisations and/or individuals that can provide aspects of external technical assistance. Skilled facilitation can be very useful when used in a sensitive and timely manner, but so too can experts in arts techniques or methods of deliberative democracy. There is also a place for thematic expertise, such as the documentation of human rights abuses; trauma support for victims and survivors of the conflict; as well as experts that can support community-based reconstruction and legal cases for the reclaim and/or control of resources. Supportive top-down, bottom-up relationships are particularly important to ensure that community priorities are reflected in any post-conflict settlement arrangements. All too often it is established institutions and interests that are quickest in putting their priorities on the table when there is a prospect of international aid to underpin peace processes. In such circumstances, it has also been found that well-networked international champions can be useful in amplifying the voice of local communities, and specific groups – such as women or youth – within these communities. One such connection was the link that then US First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton built with women in Northern Ireland. Apart from strategic relationships, there are also a range of tactics that community-based workers in Northern Ireland found useful in situations of conflict and during the tentative peace process. These ranged from the micro to the macro. An example of the former was the realisation by a worker in North Belfast that members of a local paramilitary group intimidated residents at a community meeting by always standing menacingly at the back of the hall. In response, the worker put out a row of chairs and when they were occupied, put out a second row, and so on. This meant that when the paramilitary members came in they were seated, but then surrounded by people seating in the rows behind them. Another group took the decision that no elected politician could serve on the community council executive, given that politicians were ‘servants’ of the people; whilst when a village community group was in danger of being torn apart by the antagonism of male politicians, they agreed that only women would be elected to the committee. At a macro level Community Conventions were held to bring activists from across the various communities together to discuss issues of shared concern; mobile phone networks were established to allow activists on both sides of the community divide to check-out unsettling rumours of potential attacks with each other; the North Belfast Community Development Centre organised its own enquiry into a series of sectarian disturbances; and a group of community activists in Derry City arranged a ‘Beyond Hate’ conference in 1992 to offer a platform to the full range of political voices (including those that were banned from the media as ‘terrorists’)

3 Community-Based peacebuilding: Signals for Track III

41

together with hearing from Archbishop Tutu of South Africa and other international personalities (Kilmurray, 2012). Community-based initiatives were also important in taking early tentative steps towards the political inclusion of those the state deemed too toxic or threatening but were later intrinsic to successful peace negotiations. They could provide acceptable ‘cover’ for these individuals; they could also channel international resources to fund self-help initiatives for the re-integration of ex-combatants and support for victims of violence. There are all too few examples of locally-based Community Funds in conflict areas, but where they do exist, such as the Neelan Tiruchelvam Fund in Sri Lanka, they are excellent examples of how community-based initiatives can be resourced and supported in a participative and respectful manner to address issues of social justice and peacebuilding (Foundations for Peace Network). Community workers can be more effective when assured of longer term support rather than being confined to implementing time limited projects; smaller amounts of funding administered in a flexible and responsive manner have proved their worth in peacebuilding.

The contribution of community-based action to peacebuilding The potential contribution of community-based action to peacebuilding can be considered in the context of Lederach’s (1997) well-known pyramid of three levels outlining the vertical and horizontal relationships essential for peacebuilding. The three levels have been incorporated as three tracks into the multi-track pyramid in Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1. While his pyramid primarily focuses on leadership, it also highlights the contribution of community-based action as the base of peacebuilding, while also emphasizing the importance of linking this both vertically and horizontally. Although Paffenholz and Spurk (2006) are working within the broader civil society frame, they have identified seven potential tasks for these actors as outlined in the template of specific peacebuilding functions in Table 3.1. A number of these functions may best be carried out by a partnership of community-based organisations and other NGOs, institutions or agencies. For example, Paffenholz and Spurk reference the role of churches during the violent conflict in Mozambique and El Salvador and the work of INGOs during the war in Nepal and Aceh. However it is often local community-based activists that act as points of contact and information that such initiatives require. In terms of the Lederach pyramid of levels/tracks [whose diagram is not included here but is incorporated into Figure 1.1 in the first chapter], this is a case of cooperation between Level 2 (Middle range leadership) and Level 3 (Grassroots leadership). The relationship between Level 3 (Grassroots leadership) and Level 1 (Top leadership) is often more problematic by the time both state and non-state actors get to the negotiation table, although it is incredibly important that local communities receive accurate

42

Avila Kilmurray

Table 3.1: Civil Society Functions in Peacebuilding adapted from Paffenholz and Spurk (2006). Function

Activities

Community-based Relevance

. Protection

Protection from attacks by both state and non-state armed actors

Community-based leaders can work to enhance protection by maintaining back channel communication with state forces and armed actors

. Monitoring and Observing, monitoring and reporting Community-based initiatives can Early Warning on drivers of conflict and human rights provide evidence of abuses and abuses ensure it is documented . Advocacy/ Public communication

Articulation of the interests/ perceptions of various groups (especially those that are marginalized) to place on the public agenda. In addition, communicating aspects of the peace process

Community-based workers can contribute to such advocacy by articulating the needs and experience of local groups with priority given to the most marginalised in local communities

. Socialization

Promoting peaceful and democratic attitudes and values that contribute to trust-building, tolerance and nonviolent conflict resolution

Promoting successful non-violent initiatives and act within, and between, local communities; this can contribute to trust-building by suggesting feasible alternatives to violence

. Social cohesion

Strengthening links and understanding between citizens, including bridging social capital

This work on both bonding and bridging social capital is particularly important at community level

. Intermediation and Facilitation

Supporting dialogue and interaction that help attitudinal change and promote peace and reconciliation. Enhancing relationship-building and networking

This is an area of support work that is most likely to be factored in as an external support to local community activity, although longer-term training in facilitation should be provided to local activists

. Service Provision

Providing essential services as entry points for peacebuilding

Community-based priorities should go into the mix of informing service design and delivery. In some cases, such services can be delivered by para-suppliers at community level. Otherwise, they may be better provided on a regional basis.

information, rather than politically aligned rumours, of what is being agreed. The sustainability of the peace process can be either helped or hindered by the nature of this communication. This invariably requires attention to be paid to ‘linking social capital’ that O’Prey referred to her work in Northern Ireland – building relationships between

3 Community-Based peacebuilding: Signals for Track III

43

local communities and the decision-makers engaged in brokering peace agreements. External mediators, such those put in place by Mary Robinson [the United Nations Special Representative in the Great Lakes in Africa], can play an important facilitative role in ensuring that due attention is paid to these linkages (O’Reilly & O Suillebhain, 2013). One example of proactive outreach to facilitate local community (both locale and associative) participation in peacebuilding decision-making was the Bill of Rights initiative conducted by the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland in 2007/2009, when attention was focused on contributing to a Bill of Rights that had been noted as part of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement (1998). Community groups were invited to apply for small, flexible grants to meet the costs of venue hire, speakers and mentors if required, to work with local people to develop their priorities for inclusion in the potential Bill of Rights. Data collated showed that 75% of the groups that were in receipt of grants that averaged some £4,500 made submissions to the commission tasked with progressing the issue (O’Prey, 2020b). A very different approach was charted in Colombia, where input from community-based women in particular was facilitated through the work of thematic committees and a National Summit of Women for Peace (Bouvier, 2016). Whatever the strategies used, it is important that they are not implemented on an one-off project basis but instead are part of on-going relationship building and advocacy between the Level 1 and Level 3 peacebuilding leadership.

Conclusion The genius of community-based approaches to peacebuilding is both that they are applicable over the course of both violent conflict and emergence from violence, rather than simply being seen as post-conflict, but also that they take the pulse of what is needed and achievable at various stages of the conflict-peace continuum. This is not to suggest that work is easy within and between fractured and injured communities. It takes care, sensitivity and determination and is as likely to have to cope with those who view peacebuilding as a ‘sell-out’, as much as supporting people whose lives have been disrupted by violence. However, if peacebuilding is to be sustainable then it is essential that there is local ownership of the outcomes of peace-making. Community-based work can take the pulse of what is possible, and when. For all that the work is complex, it is local people who have to live with the consequences.

44

Avila Kilmurray

References Amit, V. (2002). Reconceptualising Community in Amit V. (ed.) Realising Community – Concepts, Social Relationships and Sentiments. European Association of Social Anthropologists, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Bouvier, V. (2016). Gender and the Role of Women in Colombia’s Peace Process. U.S. Institute of Peace & UN Women. Communities in Transition programme (2000–2012) was supported by the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland, Atlantic Philanthropies and the International Fund for Northern Ireland. Cortright, D., Greenberg, M. & Stone, L. (2016). Civil Society, Peace and Power. Rowman & Littlefield. Feenan, S., O’Prey, M. & Kilmurray, A. (2020). Activism across Division: Peacebuilding Strategies and Insights from Northern Ireland. Social Change Initiative, Belfast – www.socialchangeinitiative. com Fisher, S., Matovic, V., Walker, BA. & Mathews, D. (2020). Working with Conflict 2: Skills and Strategies for Action. Zed Books. Foundations for Peace Network (FFP). www.foundationsforpeace.com Gormally, Eversley & Kilmurray (Eds), (2022). Rethinking Community Development. Policy Press. Haider, H. (2009). Community-based Approaches to Peacebuilding in Conflict-affected and Fragile Environments: Issues Paper. Birmingham University Governance & Social Development Resource Centre – http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/642/ Jusu-Sheriff, Y. (2000). Sierra Leonean Women and the Peace Process, in Lord, D. (ed.) Paying the Price: The Sierra Leone Peace Process. Accord, Conciliation Resources. Kilmurray, A. (2012) Civil Society Actors and the End of Violence in Breen-Smyth, M. (ed.) Political Violence: The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Violence. Ashgate. Kilmurray, A. (2017). Community Action in a Contested Society: The Story of Northern Ireland. Peter Lang. Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. U. S. Institute of Peace. Leonard, S. (19th February 2018) Being Strong is killing us. The importance of self-care. Mohamed, D. A. & Kising’u, T. (2018/2019) Effects of Community Leadership on Peace Building in Mogadishu, Somali. International Journals of Academics & Research Vol. 1(2),185–191. www.ijarke.com Neelan Tiruchelvam Fund in Sri Lanka. www.neelan.org O’Prey, M. (2020a). Grassroots Peacebuilding Work in Northern Ireland/the North of Ireland in Activism across Division: Peacebuilding Strategies and Insights from Northern Ireland. Social Change Initiative. O’Prey, M. (2020b). Social Justice and Rights: Supporting Challenging Conversations, in Feenan, S., O’Prey, M. & Kilmurray, A. Activism across Division: Peacebuilding Strategies and Insights from Northern Ireland. https://actbuildchange.com/blog/strong-killing-us-importance-selfcare/?cm-reloaded=1 O’Prey, M. (2020c). Framing Peacebuilding Work: Why Investment in Community Development and Peacebuilding Work is Important, in Feenan, S., O’Prey, M. & Kilmurray, A. Activism across Division: Peacebuilding Strategies and Insights from Northern Ireland: Social Change Initiative. www.socialchangeinitiative.com Obi Ndifon Neji (2018) Civil Society Organisations and Peacebuilding: A Functional Perspective. International Journal of Social Studies and Management, 4 (6) (www.iiardpub.org) O’Reilly, M. & Ó Suilleabhain, A. (September 2013). Women in Conflict Mediation: Why it Matters. International Peace Institute Issue Brief – https://www.ipinst.org/wp-content/uploads/publica tions/ipi_e_pub_women_in_conflict_med.pdf

3 Community-Based peacebuilding: Signals for Track III

45

O’Reilly, M. (2020). The Essential Influence of Women in Peace: The Liberian Example, in Hale, C. & Turner, F. Imagine: Reflections on Peace. VIIF & Spark Press. Paffenholz, T. & Spurk, C. (October 2006). Civil Society, Civic Engagement and Peacebuilding. Paper 36, Social Development Papers, World Bank – http://documents.worldbank.org/cu rated/en/822561468142505821/Civil-society-civic-engagementand-peacebuilding Paffenholz, T. (2010). Civil Society and Peacebuilding. Lynne Reinner. Portals 2 Peace: A National Action Plan Evaluation Report (2019). Assistance Mission for Africa & PAX. Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon Schuster. Ramnarain, S. (2015). Interrogating Women’s Peace Work: Community-based peacebuilding, gender and savings cooperatives in post-conflict Nepal. Community Development Journal, 40 (4). Taylor, M. (2003). Public Policy in the Community. Palgrave Macmillan. Vernon, P. (ed.) (2019). Local Peacebuilding: What Works and Why. Peace Direct & Alliance for Peacebuilding. World Bank Study (2007). Implementation, Completion and Results Report. Grant to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for an Emergency National Solidarity Project Sustainable Development Sector Unit, Afghanistan, South Asia Region – http://www-wds.worldbank.org/ external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/07/08/000333038_20_080708021028/ Rendered/PDF/ICR5240REVISED1isclosed0July0202008.pdf

Seán Brennan

4 Community Development since the 1970’s: Track II Forward, Track III Back? Abstract: The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Campaign emerged in the 1960s to reflect universal demands for greater freedom, economic equality and social justice. However, the government’s failure to bring about systemic reform resulted in the Civil Rights Campaign becoming transformed into a Thirty-year ‘physical force’ led ‘civil war’, between Irish Nationalists and British citizens. Throughout this ‘civil war’ local communities had to innovate a range of community and social services to preserve life and provide basic human needs to their family, friends and neighbours. Lessons arising from these community experiences helped shape new thinking on community development and conflict resolution. Yet, despite this success, systemic lessons have not been learned. Instead of experiencing a Positive Peace, through ‘peace washing’, these same communities experience a ‘violent peace’, leading to feelings of ‘Track II’ forward and then ‘Track III’ back. By learning from such experiences, it will inform the next generation of community development. Keywords: community development, problem solving, workshops, post-liberal peacebuilding With the advent of ‘the troubles’ in Northern Ireland, during the 1970s local communities had to organise themselves to sustain the provision of basic human needs in the midst of all the violence. Traditionally, local community groups often worked under the control of local churches and parish councils. In most parishes a range of activities were delivered by local volunteers. Activities would range from Scouting to youth clubs, athletics, boxing, sports clubs, mother’s groups, arts, drama and choral societies, all provided by the local community, for the local community. As Northern Ireland descended into violence these community organising skills were increasingly utilised on an ad-hoc single-identity and cross-community basis. This allowed local community groups to help care for and move neighbours, friends and families to safety for those whose homes, and livelihoods, were lost or destroyed as a result of the violence. Within this environ a range of Track II and Track III Three initiatives would eventually, organically, emerge and transform how grassroots groups responded to acts of violence and terrorism in their communities: and how such activism could be logically explained within the social scientific field of conflict resolution.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-004

48

Seán Brennan

Community Relations Commission As political violence increased in 1969, the Northern Ireland government took guidance from the British Race Relations Act (1964) on how to develop policy and manage community relations more effectively. From 1969, the Catholic civil servant Maurice Hayes (1995) was appointed by the Stormont government to establish a new Community Relations Council (CRC). This Council aimed to work directly with those communities and areas most affected by the violence. To engage these communities, Hayes employed four Community Relations Officers. These officers, all local men, had already been working with groups and communities trying to deal with the fallout from the violence. They also had networking connections across communities and with many of the key paramilitary ‘actors’ emerging in or taking control of these areas. In appointing these four Community Relations Officers the CRC sought to implement what would become known as an institutionally organic Track Two approach where conflict resolution mediators could work directly with those communities, and their paramilitary leaders most involved in the violence. Through a scientific application of knowledge, they could transform the conditions giving rise to violent conflict. To support the Community Relations Officers, the CRC provided training in conflict resolution and community development. In 1969 the CRC invited the international conflict resolution expert, John Wear Burton (1967), an Australian academic based in England, to work with groups engaged by the Community Relations Officers. Burton (1996) would draw lessons from his work in Northern Ireland, particularly on Track Two initiatives, to help shape his thinking on the idea of conflict resolution, its language and processes. Burton advised the CRC on how to engage communities, and ‘key actors’ active in areas experiencing violence. His idea was to then involve local groups in codesigning and developing local plans and programmes to transform the violence. Then, in ways that built trust and co-operation between conflicting communities, problem-solving workshops could proceed, where those involved in perpetrating the violence, and those living through it, could work collaboratively to resolve local issues causing disputes. This would build confidence to tackle larger constitutional issues at a later date. Burton’s idea was to engage all local ‘actors’ in these Track Two problemsolving workshops who would then help move violent actors and their victims towards a more sustainable peaceful outcome or localised transformation of the violence into a less destructive outcome. With Northern Ireland becoming increasingly polarised and framed as ‘two communities’, Unionist and Nationalist, how local community groups experienced CRC programmes at that time depended on which community they lived in. Or rather, which political order they had to operate under: either Ulster Unionism or Irish Nationalism, both socially conservative and patriarchally ordered. With high levels of political and religious control over the Northern Ireland population, much of the early CRC engagement would initially go through religious leaders. These leaders were deemed trustworthy by politicians and civil servants so could direct the CRC to ‘reputable’

4 Community Development since the 1970’s: Track II Forward, Track III Back?

49

groups and ‘reputable’ community leaders. However, while the Northern Ireland conflict is generally described as a ‘religious conflict’, between Protestants and Catholics, such terms often concealed deeper internal power struggles between local community groups, local clergy, local paramilitary groups and their local politicians.

Emergence of non-Church community leaders After the Second World War, civil rights campaigns and anti-colonial struggles emerged across the Western World. In Northern Ireland, from the 1940s, new leaders had begun to emerge and challenge the old religious and ethno-sectarian power structures. By the 1950s, the Northern Ireland Labour Party (NILP) had gained electoral support and increasingly attracted cross-community votes to electorally challenge the old ethnosectarian power structures governing each community. While Nationalists would claim credit for the Civil Rights campaign in the 1960s, this earlier work undertaken by the NILP in the 1950s set the scene for others to promote social justice and the demand of ‘British Rights for British Citizens’ (Purdy, 1990). By the 1960s more leaders were emerging from the universities, from the Trade Union movement and from those communities experiencing high levels of poverty and multiple deprivations to demand social change. These new leaders were increasingly competing with local clergy to advocate for more resources and control of the distribution of these resources, to those in need but ‘not in the know’. This transformation in leadership can be observed on both sides of the ‘interface’ in West Belfast during the 1970s. As background, one of the most famous struggles between the local community and the Catholic clergy took place in the Springhill/Ballymurphy area of West Belfast in the 1960s. With St. Thomas’ Secondary School on the Whiterock Road proving popular and attracting young teachers like the poet Seámus Heaney to work there, the local community ran a successful fund-raising campaign to build an extension onto the school. However, without consulting the community, the local Parish Priest, Canon Patrick Murphy, diverted this funding to build a new church, Corpus Christi, in the new Springhill estate. While community reaction appeared muted by the 1970s, Canon Murphy was being publicly challenged by the same community in a struggle to direct and control resources towards those most in need. With the on-going violence, the living conditions in Ballymurphy/Springhill had shocked the world. In response, Mother Theresa, opened a Mission in Springhill Avenue to bring comfort to the traumatised and help address issues of poverty, ill-health and social exclusion experienced by many in that local community. However, for reasons not yet fully understood, senior clerics in the Catholic Church intervened and Mother Theresa was ‘advised’ to leave the area and soon after her Mission in Springhill was closed down. At this time, a local curate, Fr. Des Wilson (1997), moved beyond the control of Canon Murphy and set up Springhill Community House. This project became a key

50

Seán Brennan

driver in helping the local community engage in community development programmes and help people cope with their living conditions as a ‘low-intensity’ war raged on around them. However, the struggle for resources always appeared inhibited by local church leaders competing for the same resources. Often local clergy questioned the legitimacy of such groups receiving funding. With British government papers from the 1970s now publicly available, it is possible to read letters from Canon Murphy to Lord Melchett, then a Labour Party Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office, responsible for health, social services and education, which included sports and the arts. The archives show Canon Murphy naming local residents, elected representatives, and local community groups, accusing them of being subversive or under the influence of ‘communists’ and criminals. And yet, in a sign of the changing times, Melchett began providing small amounts of money to these groups, to help relieve poverty, promote education and provide advice on how to get access to employment opportunities or funding to deliver anti-poverty and social welfare programmes in areas of multiple deprivations. In Unionist areas, the role of the Churches reflected similar power-relations as in the nationalist community. However, whereas Nationalists only had to deal with one Church, grassroots unionist groups had to compete with a variety of churches and religiously established charities like the Salvation Army. For example, in one square mile on the Shankill Road in Belfast one could encounter over fifty different church congregations, from the high Anglican to local Mission Hall. However, as the violence increased in loyalist communities many ‘mainstream’ Protestant church leaders distanced themselves from their local congregations (Mitchell, 2008). As the residents of Springmartin and Highfield in West Belfast discovered in the early 1970s, it was not just the churches that were disappearing. With a collapse in Local Government and social services, many local people were forced into collective action to not only help defend their community from sectarian attack but to look after and care for their families, friends and neighbours (Felo, 2013). From such organic community action initiatives, a number of sustainable Track Two initiatives would emerge. For example, the group Farset was established on the Springfield Road in 1974. Through its promotion of community development, this West Belfast cross-community enterprise helped support local Catholic and Protestant communities address issues of poverty, paramilitary violence, and cross-community relations, as well as helping to shape the very theory of conflict resolution, Track Two workshops and the practice of community development (Camplisson & Hall, 2002). During the 1970s such community development activities were captured in a seminal book, The Rape and Plunder of the Shankill, written by Ron Weiner (1980) and published by Farset Co-operative Press in 1978. As one of Burton’s researchers, Weiner had been drawn to Belfast for academic work but developed relations and trust with local community groups in the Shankill area. With funding from the Barrow and Geraldine S Cadbury Trust and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Weiner and these local groups undertook a structured conflict analysis of the area. Using

4 Community Development since the 1970’s: Track II Forward, Track III Back?

51

community action research, Weiner then framed a narrative based on government commissioned reports and population data to better understand why the Shankill community had become decimated in the 1970s. Research findings showed much of the damage and urban decay arose not from the violence but from political decisions taken by unionist politicians and developers in the 1950s and 1960s. Their aim was simply to profit off the redevelopment of the Shankill. Also, by 1969, security decisions by the British Army to deal with the growing sectarian violence instigated a movement of unionists from New Barnsley to Springmartin which then corralled the West Belfast unionist community into the ‘Greater Shankill Area’, stretching from Peter’s Hill at the bottom of the Shankill out to Highfield/Springmartin estates in West Belfast.

Secular community development In the 1970s, as West Belfast increasingly became divided, and consolidated into Protestant and Catholic conflict containment zones, a new community sector emerged to reflect this transformation in society. And during this time, the issue of political control over local groups became a central question. Initially, many local communities had responded to the violence by acting in an ad hoc fashion, organising to defend their families and neighbours, secure their local territorial boundaries and provide basic social services to family, friends and neighbours within their estates. Then, increasingly, the old Parish Councils gave way to more organised and legally constituted housing estate-based community groups and Tenants Associations. Between 1969–1974, these local groups worked with the CRC on emerging Track Two approaches to try and bypass security concerns and maintain a basic quality of life for their families and neighbours: to help reduce stress in communities experiencing high levels of state and paramilitary violence and trauma. However, with the election of a new ‘Power-Sharing’ Executive in 1974, local politicians regained political power and decided they, rather than the CRC or local community groups, would decide who would receive funding to deliver social justice and community relations projects in the community (Devlin, 1975). With the CRC dissolved and their Community Relations Officers dismissed, local groups now had to go through the deeply conservative and sectarianized political systems governing Northern Ireland to access funding. This appeared the only way to get access to funding for the delivery of basic social services and community relations activities in areas most affected by the violence. Many new community leaders and groups were often in conflict with, or in political opposition to, their elected representatives. As funding and resources were distributed through this deeply sectarian political system, claims that some individuals and groups were being overlooked or blacklisted by local Councils, politicians or government Departments began to

52

Seán Brennan

increase. Yet, as wider macro political changes emerged, in both the UK and European Economic Community (EEC), the delivery focus and governmental funding of social justice programmes would change to a more secularised form of community development.

Ulsterisation and neo-liberal policies At the national level, the United Kingdom (UK) Government moved towards an ‘ulsterisation’ policy in 1975 to better conflict manage both the Unionist and Nationalist communities. With this national focus under ‘direct rule’, British Ministers like Lord Melchett began engaging directly with local political, religious, paramilitary and community representatives in both communities. This type of Track Two approach had become ‘normalised’ by the British Government, thereby enabling the British state to bypass the sectarian power structures conducting Local Government. It ensured a new form of political order would emerge to better conflict manage each community – and the internal power-relations within. As the UK and Irish state’s membership of the European Economic Community (EEC) grew in the 1970s, a new economic rationale, neoliberalism, was emerging to re-shape the macro political economies of its Member States (Van Middelaar, 2020). As the UK transformed within this wider geopolitical development, its Thatcherite administrative systems increasingly moved beyond a Welfare State approach to display a neoliberal mentality to government, where the state should withdraw and allow the ‘free market’ to deliver Basic Human Needs and social services. In Northern Ireland, these new neoliberal policies and programmes began to emerge at the everyday level as Enterprise Parks and Co-ops. These programmes reflected a community development approach and were funded by the British state to enable local community leaders to create employment opportunities for local communities experiencing inter-generational unemployment. Projects promoting, or encouraging, economic development at the local level, or any entrepreneurial opportunities that would stimulate job creation, were increasingly funded by local government departments. The idea was to help generate economic activities and provide alternate employment opportunities and local service industries for local communities. Increasingly, some community groups were funded to deliver more long-term educational and training programmes, and routes to employment, through new government programmes such as Action for Community Employment (ACE) schemes. This type of national government funding for local economic development was increasingly directed towards those local community entrepreneurs and community groups who could recruit local people onto short-term, one-year, paid training programmes. Local community groups began developing local services and recruiting local people to deliver them. In this way, ACE schemes then helped stimulate economic activity in areas of

4 Community Development since the 1970’s: Track II Forward, Track III Back?

53

extreme poverty, while attempting to address inter-generational unemployment and multiple deprivations throughout the 1980s. While Nationalists could cite incidents of poverty, ill-health, social exclusion and sectarian discrimination, as reasons for their impoverished state, things were different in unionist areas (Sinnerton, 2002). Given the terrorist attacks from Nationalists, local groups in loyalist communities could not be seen attacking the British government, or their own politicians for fear of being accused of ‘siding with the terrorists’. This dilemma created a range of problems for local groups in places like Springmartin and Highfield. As part of the UK deindustrialisation process in the 1970s, many workingclass unionist communities increasingly experienced long-term unemployment and dependency on a ‘benefits system’. In loyalist interface communities in West Belfast, like Springmartin, residents increasingly felt abandoned, not just by the British state, but also their own politicians and church leaders. However, given the security situation, these local groups had to work diplomatically with, and be subjective to, their unionist politicians and church leaders rather than oppose them. In this fashion, the unionist political and civil society elites continued to retain control of the Unionist community. This control ensured local unionist community groups would not evolve like the Nationalist community sector: to challenge and supersede the established Unionist political order. This form of control would eventually prove problematic for grassroots unionist groups as, by the end of the 1980s, wider EEC social policy transformations would once again change the policy environment for ‘grassroots’ community action: and due to the tight political and religious control over the unionist community sector, many disadvantaged communities would miss out on new funding opportunities arising from such policy changes.

European funding In 1989, in response to calls from Northern Ireland’s three Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), the EEC announced the introduction of the ‘Poverty 3’ Programme into Northern Ireland. As the European Commission (EC) prepared for enlargement and a European Union (EU) to replace the EEC, funding was distributed across Member States. The aim was to promote the benefits of an enlarged EU and the greater social inclusion and economic wellbeing for all citizens, particularly for those living in areas experiencing extreme poverty and multiple deprivation. With a focus on the Brownlow Estate in Craigavon, Co. Armagh, the EC provided funding for a bespoke anti-poverty programme aimed at addressing the multiple deprivations in Brownlow. Following completion of the Poverty 3 Programme, lessons had been learned and six years later in 1995, the EU established a Special European Union Programmes Body (SEUPB) to help the peoples of Northern Ireland and the Border Regions of Ireland take opportunities arising from the peace following the

54

Seán Brennan

1994 paramilitary ceasefires. This ‘peace dividend’ drew lessons from Poverty 3 and, initially, was viewed as a long-term means to ‘level up’ and finally end the sociosectarian economic conditions that sustained communal divisions, and enmity, between unionists and nationalists. Again, such developments reflected a wider geopolitical transformation in how Western states would deal with the resolution of inter-state violence and civil wars (Paris, 2004). With the end of the Cold War, the 1990s became a time of hope and optimism for many seeking a more peaceful planet. As peace appeared to break out around the world in 1994, the paramilitary ceasefires in Northern Ireland created an opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to experience a cessation of direct violence. Through the United Nations (UN) the concept of ‘post-conflict’ peacebuilding was promoted as a positive international model to help regenerate societies and territories attempting to emerge out of violent conflict. This peacebuilding mentality then helped inform EU policies on how it could frame the delivery of funding to help people take opportunities arising from peace. This peacebuilding approach would be institutionalised in 1995 through SEUPB Programmes. However, to reflect the West’s ‘victory’ in the Cold War, rather than deal with the underlying causes of violence, now all ‘peace dividends’ would conform to the neoliberal mentality of promoting the ‘marketization’ of post-conflict recovery to regenerate ‘postconflict’ zones. While peace research emphasised the need to tackle both direct forms of violence and its underlying structural causes of poverty and social exclusion (Galtung, 1998), in the neoliberal peacebuilding model promoted by the EU, economic development and marketization would now drive the physical and social regeneration of ‘post-conflict’ societies rather than social justice. Initially, through Peace I (1995–2001), as SEUPB funding would be known, finance followed a Burtonian conflict resolution method of using a Track Two approach to engage ‘grassroots’ groups and directing financial and intellectual resources to them, to build trust and cooperation. This method would become known as a 1st Generation model of ‘conflict resolution’ peacebuilding (Roberts, 2011). In the summer of 1995, ‘grassroots’ communities across Northern Ireland, particularly in those areas most affected by the violence, were awash with EU funding to hold community ‘fun days’ and ‘street parties’ to celebrate the peace. However, the impact of this funding had an adverse effect on local groups. Previously, residents would have volunteered to deliver local community activities, fund-raise, stage street parties and ensure the safety of all their neighbours during these celebrations. However, when stories emerged of how much funding individual community leaders were supposedly receiving through SEUPB programmes, local residents stopped volunteering and increasingly expected the ‘paid worker’ to organise community events. When Peace II (2001–2008) arrived, it promoted a 2nd Generation ‘economic’ model of peacebuilding. This necessitated the formation of Local Strategy Partnerships (LSP) at the Local Government level to distribute the EU peace dividend at the grassroots. Through the LSP, elected Councillor’s, Local Government Officers, business

4 Community Development since the 1970’s: Track II Forward, Track III Back?

55

leaders and ‘representatives from the community’ now decided how the peace dividend would be spent at the local level. Rather than funding community celebrations, programmes now focused on stimulating economic development through local entrepreneurial activities and training programmes to make people ‘economically active’. When Peace III emerged in 2008, a 3rd Generation of ‘technocratic’ peacebuilding emerged to ‘normalise’ the neoliberal model, of ‘post-conflict’ regeneration. Now, the transformation agenda would be driven through marketization and economic development. This neoliberal peacebuilding model would then normalise how the community sector could be managed and controlled effectively to deliver a neoliberal peace.

A ‘Violent Peace’? Speaking to the journalist Eamon Mallie, in 2021, the former Civil Rights leader, and former British MP, Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, claimed that despite all investment, the ‘peace dividend’ had made things worse for socially excluded communities and working families in 2021 than in the 1960s. Through her work establishing the South Tyrone Empowerment Programme (STEP), in Dungannon, Co. Tyrone, Devlin had worked at the ‘grassroots’ to improve the quality of life of those most socially excluded in society. Her empirical insights on the peace dividend reinforced, and gave voice to, a growing issue in the community sector, at least since the 1970s, on what the role and function of community groups were in a liberal-democratic state. Was it to plug the gaps arising from bad government or actively reform the deliverance of government and strengthen the overall health and well-being of the political economy? Evidence from Northern Ireland suggests that by 2021, and despite all its accrued knowledge and resources, the community sector appeared more complicit, or trapped, in sustaining local governmental neoliberal power relations, and structural violence, than to deliver ’good government’ or strengthen the overall health and well-being of those most in need. In making such claims, McAliskey’s empirical evidence reinforced other research that showed, in their managed move towards a neoliberal form of peacebuilding, the aspirations, and expectations, of the Civil Rights generation had become ‘lost in transformation’, resulting in a ‘violent peace’ rather than a ‘positive peace’ emerging across Northern Ireland after 2007 (Mitchell, 2012). As British state data on the NI population shows, this structurally ‘violent peace’ can be observed. Despite an annual budget of £25 billion, with an additional £15 billion from the EU and international donors since 1995, the Department for Health reports, between 2013–19, no change in male or female healthy life expectancy in NI for those suffering inequalities. Most shockingly, the number of males dying from drug-related causes arising from low quality of life outcomes increased by 98% between 2007 and 2017. By the end of 2020 the Housing Executive noted the wait for social housing was 10% higher than it had been in March that year, with 42,665

56

Seán Brennan

people registered as being in ‘housing stress’. By 2018/19, 29.2% of school leavers had failed to achieve the benchmark of five GCSEs at grades A*-C level while the proportion of students getting free school meals showed an even higher rate of failure, at 50.5%. Such rudimentary data on the health of the Northern Ireland population reinforces McAliskey’s claims of a ‘violent peace’. Despite the peace dividends and international investment, over a quarter of the population, 318,000, were deemed ‘economically inactive’ and over 300,000 people were judged to be living in absolute poverty. These policy failures are best summed up through analysis of the UK Government strategy Neighbourhood Renewal (2003), “a ‘cross government strategy’ aimed at bringing together the work of all government departments in partnership with local people to tackle disadvantage and deprivation in all aspects of everyday life” (Knox, 2016, p. 6). Even with Neighbourhood Renewal being surpassed by a new NI Executive programme Delivering Social Change (2013), the analysis showed the failure to deliver Basic Human Needs to those communities who suffered the most from the violence. Growing levels of “disillusionment and a sense of helplessness set in among those who had most to gain from peace”; namely, communities subjugated by paramilitaries and abandoned by government departments, local authorities, health trusts and agencies which have clearly failed to deliver key public services (Knox, 2016, p. 17). And yet, between 2010–2016 Barclay’s Bank reported the number of millionaires in NI had increased by 40%. Then, two political developments came along to create instability: the issue of Brexit emerged in 2016 and the collapse of the power sharing NI Executive in 2017. The consociational model of government descended into disrepute through the scandal of the Renewable Heating Incentive (RHI) Scheme. In 2020, the nurses, and other hospital staff had to go on strike for the first time ever to raise awareness of their impoverished ‘working poor’ conditions. The Northern Ireland Peace Process, once globally lauded, had increasingly become tarnished, particularly at the local level, and looked more like a ‘Potemkin Village’ façade of peace than a successful model of transformative peacebuilding (Nagel, 2009).

Neoliberal conflict management and peacebuilding For members of the unionist community sector, the rise and decline of the Peace Process has helped expose how community groups fared under the Northern Ireland Assembly. As unionist groups established through Weiner’s Rape and Plunder of the Shankill, much of the responsibility for the on-going multiple deprivation in loyalist communities continues to fall on unionist politicians. Yet, despite a rise in grassroots community activism through ‘New Loyalism’ in the 1990s, the sector continued to be heavily controlled and governed by unionist political, religious and civil society elites. The weakness of this governance model was exposed in the

4 Community Development since the 1970’s: Track II Forward, Track III Back?

57

1990s when allegations arose about the UK National Lottery only funded Nationalist groups. As Loyalist grassroots community activists soon discovered, this claim was false. Instead, it was established most community groups in unionist areas were controlled by the local churches who would not apply for National Lottery funding because it arose from gambling and was against their Christian ethos. Therefore, unionist community groups had to re-constitute and become more secular and legally based to qualify for National Lottery funding. Similarly, in the Nationalist political world, Sinn Fein could use their political power to influence which community groups received funding and which groups could be done away with if they perceived the local group was a local electoral threat to the Party. Having been carefully managed and selectively resourced by the UK government since the 1970s, with the 1994 ceasefires, the Nationalist community sector was increasingly resourced by the EU and the UK to introduce a range of community relations and community development programmes into their community. These programmes were designed to take opportunities arising from the peace. With the release of politically motivated prisoners, following the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, many nationalist community groups became the training ground for select ex-combatants from the Provisional IRA to make the transition from ‘freedom fighter’ to community activist and on to political representative. With a tight grip on funding, local community group management committees controlled by Sinn Fein could also determine who was employed in the community sector and who was not, depending on both political and paramilitary allegiances. This tight control over the sector and its funding streams would also ensure no organised grassroots opposition emerged to challenge Sinn Fein (SF) or the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) about their neoliberal peacebuilding programmes promoting a ‘low wage’ precarious economy. Such everyday realities also ensured the positive idea of a ‘community worker’, established in the heyday of the CRC, increasingly became transformed. Now, in 2021, a ‘community worker’ is more generally perceived in a less positive light: and often valued more as an oppressor of the local community than its emancipator.

A neoliberal peace? With the end of direct violence in 1994, the Northern Ireland peace process was universally lauded as a successful neoliberal peacebuilding exercise that successfully transitioned a bitterly divided polity from war to peace. However, on closer inspection, reflected through the quality of life data discussed above, the Northern Ireland peace process has not delivered a positive peace, where direct violence and structural violence have been radically eradicated. Instead, it has delivered a neoliberal model of peacebuilding that has produced a ‘shared out’ consociational model of governance – one that maintains sectarian divisions and widespread poverty to sustain the Potemkin

58

Seán Brennan

façade of a ‘negative peace’. Meanwhile, political and civil society elites in each political world become enriched through their delivery of the ‘trickle down’ peace dividend to their supporters. Instead of constructing a transformative peacebuilding experience through greater democratisation, participation and development, Northern Ireland has become a ‘frozen conflict’. Now, it promotes a form of ‘peacewashing’, where ethnosectarian elites sustain their political power through ethno-sectarian politics while poverty and ill-health are blamed on the poorest in the ‘others’ own political world. For those living in interface communities such ‘peacewashing’ ensures there is always fear of a return to localised sectarian violence when political elites in each political world need to ‘flex’ the sectarian muscle every now and then, to ‘let off steam’ or distract supporters from their own failures. And those who suffered the most from the sectarian violence, and state structural violence, continue to experience a ‘bare life’: of ongoing and intergenerational poverty, of intergenerational mental ill-health and trauma, of zero-hour contracts and an economic precarity that limits life expectancy in those people and places that suffered the most from the violence.

A new governance order? As the 2012 Flags Dispute in loyalist communities revealed, lessons from the past had not been learned by the unionist political elites. Similarly, with a failure to address intergenerational poverty in West Belfast, lessons from the past had not been learnt by Nationalist politicians. Despite the “success” of the peace process, some West Belfast Electoral Wards are still ranked as most deprived in Northern Ireland. And because of this, both SF and the DUP stand accused of abandoning those who suffered the most from the violence. When Northern Ireland’s National Health Service (NHS) staff took strike action in early 2020 over deteriorating pay and working conditions, it appeared the whole community was finally rising up against the SF and DUP led Northern Ireland Executive and its compliant community sector. Only the outbreak of Covid-19 rescued these political and civil elites from further confrontation with working families, the working poor, and those 300,000 living in ‘absolute poverty’, increasingly experiencing precarity in their everyday employment and living conditions. This suggests, despite its purported success, the peace process appears to have blunted the radical nature of community activism for social justice in Northern Ireland. And those Track Two approaches, that helped shape Conflict Resolution theory, failed to remove the underlying conditions now sustaining the ongoing sectarian conflict, by other means. At one time back in the 1950s and 1960s, the Northern Ireland community sector had ignited Civil Rights campaigns. Now, it appears contained and more a vapid instrument of neoliberal government than an emancipatory means to ‘level up’ and make peace positive. For such reasons, McAliskey appears correct in claiming people are worse off now in 2021 than they were in the 1960s.

4 Community Development since the 1970’s: Track II Forward, Track III Back?

59

However, with the growing impact of Climate Catastrophe, and the normalisation of ‘Pandemic Living’, more members of the polity are becoming both politically and socially active in their attempts to secure safe solutions for such challenges. This rise in environmental activism, and biopolitical (‘politics of life’) activism, will inevitably mean more demands for greater participation in local governance systems, to ensure these systems are ‘fit for purpose’ and can sustain a polity through pandemics and catastrophic climate events. This new biopolitical struggle, the struggle to preserve life in an Age of Pandemics and Climate Catastrophe, will require a new governance system to help shape a larger struggle, to gain greater local power over an everenlarging global governance system and ensure the preservation of Life as Species (Bratton, 2021). As environmental politics, and biopolitical approaches to peacebuilding, increasingly motivates new people into social and local community action the very nature of community activism will undoubtedly transform such governance systems, particularly in a digital age. This transformation is already evident through the medium of social media, where large communities can become socially active on a global basis in a short period of time. For example, in May 2021, thousands of activists both digitally and physically mobilised across Glasgow, within hours, to create a ‘stand-off’ with immigration officers and prevent asylum seekers being arrested in the local community. And thousands more drove the social media campaign that increased numbers on the street and drew international attention and negative publicity for the British government. Yet, while such activities are perceived as a success for those social activists who freed the Asylum seekers, as lessons from Northern Ireland demonstrate, security analysists will no doubt study such events in Glasgow, to ensure lessons are learned and no such “success” ever emerges from that source again. If environmental activists and biopolitical peacebuilders are to secure Life as Species, how they evade the aporias of a digitally securitised state and secure resources to promote and protect the health of the polity remains to be seen. Lessons from community development experiences in Northern Ireland demonstrate that despite a wealth of resources, the development of new theories in peace research like Track Two workshops and ‘post-conflict’ peacebuilding, the underlying conditions that fermented and sustained the violence still remain. And rather than create an emancipatory form of peace, a once radicalised community sector is now carefully ‘conflict managed’ into a subservient role, where ‘peace, as conflict management’, as Michael Banks (1987) described, becomes the norm to preserve the ‘violent peace’. Yet, lessons from Northern Ireland also suggest that if future biopolitical community activists are to be successful, they too need to develop a radicalised and digitally savvy cohort of social justice warriors, actively organising and mobilising the multitude, to generate a tsunami of transformation in local governance systems. As these digital community activists organise, they would do well to develop a Burtonian approach, in how to engage, enable and empower local people and local communities

60

Seán Brennan

to design local solutions that will secure, protect and nourish their neighbourhoods in more sustainable and life preserving ways. Undoubtedly, this transformation process will require both Track II and Track III initiatives. However, where once such initiatives ventured into areas under the control of physically violent paramilitary leaders, now environmentalists and biopolitical peacebuilders must venture into those areas under the control of the structurally violent leaders. That is, to venture deep into the governance systems, to engage those who ‘conduct the conduct’ of government. Here biopolitical peacebuilders Must impose the Realpolitik of Twenty-First Century lifer on technocrats: that they too, and their families, will not survive Climate Catastrophe. If Life, as Species, is to prevail, these governance technocrats must become both advocates and enablers for a biopolitical peace. This biopolitical peacebuilding approach will require everyone in the polity, from the local to the global, politicians, diplomats, technocrats, business leaders and Civil Society to work collaboratively, and co-design, develop and deliver, the physical and social defences, built from the grassroots up, that people, place, and planet will require to survive an ever increasingly unstable future: where the threat of further Climate Catastrophes and life-threatening pandemics increasingly become the ‘norm’ for those most in need of health services and social care.

References Banks, M. (1987). ‘Four conceptions of peace.’ In Conflict Management and Problem Solving, edited by Dennis J.D. Sandole and Ingrid Sandole-Staroste. New York University Press. Bratton, B. (2021). The Revenge of the Real: Politics for a Post-Pandemic World. Verso. Burton, J. W. (1967). International Relations: A General Theory. Cambridge University Press. Burton, J. W. (1996). Conflict Resolution: Its Language and Processes. Lanham, Md., & The Scarecrow Press Inc. Camplisson, J. & Hall M. (2002). From Conflict Containment to Resolution: The experiences of a Moldovan-Northern Ireland self-help initiative. Island Publications. Devlin, P. (1975). The Fall of the Northern Ireland Executive. Paddy Devlin. Felo, J. (2013). Everyone Can Help: Social Service Provision by the Ulster Defence Association, 1971–1988. Unpublished thesis, The Queen’s University. Galtung, J. (1998). Peace By Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. Sage Publications. Hayes, M. (1995). Minority Verdict: Experiences of a Catholic Public Servant. The Blackstaff Press. Mitchell, A. (2012). Lost in Transformation, Violent Peace and Peaceful Conflict in Northern Ireland. Palgrave Macmillan. Mitchell, C. (2008). ‘For God and. . . Conflict Transformation? The Churches’ Dis/engagement with Contemporary Loyalism.’ In Edwards A. & Bloomer S. (Ed) Transforming the Peace Process in Northern Ireland. Irish Academic Press. Nagle, J. (2009). “Potemkin Village: Neo-liberalism and Peace-building in Northern Ireland?” Ethnopolitics 8 (2) 173–190. Paris, R. (2004). At War’s End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict. Cambridge University Press.

4 Community Development since the 1970’s: Track II Forward, Track III Back?

61

Purdy, B. (1990). Politics in the Streets, The origins of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland. The Blackstaff Press. Roberts, D. (2011). Liberal Peacebuilding and Global Governance: Beyond the Metropolis. Routledge. Sinnerton, H. (2002). David Ervine: Unchartered Waters. Brandon. Van Middelaar, L. (2020). The Passage to Europe, How a Continent Became a Union. Trans by Liz Waters. Yale University Press. Weiner, R. (1980). The Rape and Plunder of the Shankill – Community Action: the Belfast Experience. Farset Co-operatives Press Ltd. Wilson, D. (1997). Democracy Denied. Mercier Press.

5 Insider Mediation of Contentious Parading Abstract: The Drumcree dispute (Brendan McAllister) – The local Orange parades walking to the Drumcree church in Portadown escalated political tension between the unionist and nationalist communities across Northern Ireland for five consecutive years. It became a litmus test of the wider peace process and, in time, threatened the implementation of the 1998 Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement. Attempts to mediate the dispute locally through inter-mediation and at a senior level through proximity talks did not succeed but significant lessons can be learned about how to resolve a local identity-based dispute. When compromise is viewed as an existential threat to group identity and core values, rather than attempting ‘conflict resolution’, a slower ‘conflict transformation’ approach is more effective. The Derry/Londonderry dispute (Michael Doherty) – Unlike Drumcree, where the parades took place outside Portadown city centre, the parades by the Apprentice Boys affected business interests right in the middle of the city. Shuttle mediation between the protagonists in Derry [also called Londonderry] became possible because it was backed by a group of business and civil society leaders in the city. Creating a confidential safe dialogue space in the form of a roundtable proved crucial in building a consensus on the collective management of the parades. Keywords: Drumcree Orange parades, inter-mediation, shuttle mediation, proximity talks, compromise, Apprentice Boys, the Derry model, inclusive roundtable

Introduction Geoffrey Corry In these two case studies by local mediators, Brendan and Michael share their experiences of what happens when parties are not willing to sit down face-to-face to listen to each other and work through a process of understanding the emerging core issues together. All mediators believe and hope in the mutual reward that arrives through dialogue and reciprocal understandings directly between the parties – so it can be very frustrating when they have to default to a shuttle approach. The case studies illustrate two models for resolving inter-communal disputes: intermediation and shuttle mediation. There has been much debate between the professional concept of an outsider impartial neutral mediator and the local emergence of an ‘insider partial’ mediator. This raises the question of whether political and international mediation requires strict neutrality in order for them to be accepted and trusted by the conflicting parties. In a small society like Northern Ireland, mediators coming from inside the identity conflict are unlikely to gain a foothold unless they are known and trusted within their community. For example, during the negotiations that led to the 1994 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-005

64

Brendan McAllister

ceasefires, Fr Alex Reid came from the Catholic Redemptorist Order at Clonard Monastery and built a trusted political relationship with Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader; while Rev Roy Magee was a Presbyterian minister who got to know the various loyalist leaders in Protestant working class areas. These clergymen acted on their own without official blessing. Insider mediators must overcome external perceptions that they are biased. Brendan, a Catholic, overcame this problem by co-mediating the Drumcree dispute with his professional colleague Joe Campbell, a Protestant. Through building local relationships of trust, local mediators may have greater influence than outsiders in encouraging parties to understand their opponent better. Disputes over parading by Orangemen along their traditional routes through Catholic nationalist areas in towns and cities erupted during the negotiations in the mid-1990’s and in the years following GFA. The increased tension and heightened emotion spread ripples into the workplace and were felt across civil society, particularly in the interface areas in Belfast. The police were stretched to the limit and public disorder led to attacks on homes, schools and businesses. Parades and marches are at the heart of the protestant Orange narrative and are colourful occasions accompanied by flute bands and drums. The streets are lined by families who come every year for the open-air theatrical drama and usually meet up in the afternoon for a community gathering in a nearby field. On the eve of the Orange parades in recent years, bonfires are built from hundreds of discarded wooden pallets and lit in housing estates by loyalist teenagers. They burn into the early hours of the morning when protestant neighbours celebrate their culture of being British. Organising and hoarding of the wooden pallets begins many months before and it becomes a bonding socialising process for kids which sends a message out to the nationalist community. Loyalist leader Jamie Bryson explains what the bonfires do: “For the eight to nine weeks, it brings together young people, it creates that social cohesion, that sense of community; and I think the opposition to the fires is an attempt to break down the cohesion that keeps the unionist community together.” (O’Doherty 2019, p. 258)

5.1 Case Study – Mediating an Identity Conflict: Lessons from The Drumcree Parades Dispute 1995–1999 Brendan McAllister The Church of Ireland parish church of Drumcree is situated on the outskirts of the town of Portadown in County Armagh, 35 miles from Belfast. In 1995 it became the centre of an inter-communal stand-off between members of a Protestant organisation, the ‘Orange Order’, and the local Catholic community.

5 Insider Mediation of Contentious Parading

65

It turned out to be one of the most difficult and intractable local conflicts of the entire Troubles. Erupting in 1995, the Drumcree conflict raged until the year 2000. It spread from Portadown across Northern Ireland with widespread disorder, increased community tensions and a number of deaths. It threatened the build-up to the negotiations taking place at Stormont and after the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, it continued to undermine the peace process. It is an example of how a local, ground-level dispute can escalate to the macrolevel conflict and become a litmus test of the wider peace process. The dispute centred around the tradition of Protestant men belonging to ‘Loyal Orange Lodge No 1’ of the Orange Order parading on the second Sunday in July each year in their bowler hats and orange sashes to a religious service at the picturesque parish ‘Church of the Ascension’ on a hill one mile from the centre of Portadown. This was a very special annual event in the hearts and minds of the Orangemen because they had walked that road each year since 1807. It took on added significance after the first World War when the Sunday service commemorated the 2,000 men of the 36th Ulster Division of the British Army who died at the Battle of the Somme in July 1916. On the way back to Portadown from their Drumcree church service, the Orangemen walked down Garvaghy Road which used to be a country road winding its way through green fields on either side. However, in the 1960’s, the Garvaghy fields became a large housing estate for the Catholic/nationalist minority community in the majority Protestant/unionist town. For over thirty years, until the 1990s the Garvaghy residents had tolerated this parade through their neighbourhood in a silent manner with their heads turned away. Following the ceasefires of 1994, many believed the majorityminority power relationship had changed and they no longer wished to be treated as second class citizens. They wanted a new future based on principles of equality and consent. The Garvaghy residents experienced the parade as disrespectful, a piece of theatre acting out Orange triumphalism and a humiliation to local Catholic/nationalist people. The annual Drumcree parade is part of a wider Orange festival held across Ulster on the 12th July when all Orange Lodges take to the streets with their bands and regalia – boys and men – and walk through their local town to a field for a picnic with their families. It is a very colourful occasion that has deep meaning for unionists going back to the Battle of the Boyne in 1698 when the Catholic King James was defeated by the Protestant William of Orange as part of the Reformation territorial wars. As the parading season draws near each July, ripples of tension run through each side of the community with apprehension of possible trouble or disorder.

66

Brendan McAllister

The first mediation intervention Continuing for five years from 1995 onwards, frustration grew among local people regarding the failure to find a political solution to the parading issue. Each July the crisis deepened. It created a vacuum for much inter-communal disharmony and aggressive behaviour. How could a local situation remain insoluble? I was invited into the developing conflict in June 1995 by a member of the Garvaghy Road Residents Group who asked me to assess the potential for mediation with Orangemen regarding the upcoming annual Church parade. After taking soundings within the Orange Order, I concluded that the conflict was not amenable to mediation at that time but that mediation might be feasible in the Autumn, after the ‘marching season’ was over. In the meantime, I would go to Portadown on the day of the parade to observe the situation. Thus, I travelled to Portadown on a sunny Sunday morning in early July. While the Orangemen were at their church service, police monitored the Garvaghy Rd where Catholic residents were preparing to block the return road of the parade in protest. I met with Freddie Hall, an Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) of the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) who was in over-all command.

DRUMCREE CHURCH

GARVAGHY ROAD

CORCRAIN ROAD OBINS STREET

PORTADOWN

Approved route Rejected route Mainly nationalist area

ORANGE HALL Start

Figure 5.1: Route of Orange Parade. Source: Based on map by BBC News.

Anticipating public disorder, ACC Hall decided to reroute the Orange Order away from the Garvaghy Road and oblige them instead to go back to the town centre by the same road as their outward parade. When the Orangemen were informed of the police decision outside the church, they refused to take an alternative route home and a stand-off began. Over the next two days, thousands of Orangemen and Protestant sympathisers

5 Insider Mediation of Contentious Parading

67

flocked to Portadown. Hundreds of police and soldiers were drafted in. The roads became lined with armoured vehicles and Chinook helicopters were landing and taking off from a nearby military base. National and international media arrived to do live broadcasts from the scene. At various times Protestant marching bands arrived and paraded to the church and entertained the crowds with hymns, popular music or tunes of tribal defiance. Groups of loyalist paramilitaries were also on the scene. So, the atmosphere alternated between carnival, religious festival, political rally and menacing mob. On the second afternoon (Monday), more than 24 hours into the stand-off, I got a call from ACC Hall, asking me to attempt to mediate between the sides. Conscious that I was a Catholic, Mr. Hall asked if I could bring a Protestant colleague with me. I set off for Portadown, accompanied by Joe Campbell who was my deputy at Mediation Northern Ireland and a Presbyterian to boot. Arriving in Portadown around 5.00pm, we began a multi-party ‘shuttle mediation’ immediately between representatives of the Orange Order, the Garvaghy Road Residents Association and the police. This included meeting with a young Unionist politician and Orangeman, Jeffrey Donaldson, David Trimble, the Unionist MP for the area and Rev Ian Paisley, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party. Our method of intervention could be described as ‘inter-mediation’, where the parties do not meet and the mediator goes between them under an agreed process. The mediator is essentially a ‘go-between’ and the task is to bring information from one party to another, to facilitate separate discussions and assist communication between the parties. However, in bilateral discussions with each side, the mediator needs to pay attention to the language they use and the language of any messages or communication that they may be entrusted to carry. There is a need to frame or reframe words and messages using ‘pregnant language’, meaning language which – while being true to the intention of each party – also carries the potential of new life and creativity for the conflict. The significant contribution we could make was to improve understandings, support creative thinking and explore an accommodation. This is different to face-toface mediation where the parties are willing to meet together in the same room or indeed ‘conciliation’ where the facilitator offers support and encourages each side to engage in ‘inclusive thinking’, but without being given (or taking on) an intermediary role between the sides. In a contentious situation such as Northern Ireland during the decades of the troubles, such distinctions and nuances about mediative activity had to be carefully developed, especially in circumstances where the sides were not willing to enter formal mediation, lest it confer legitimacy on their opponents or send a signal that they were willing to compromise on fundamental positions. After a night of stand-off, as the dawn came up on the Tuesday morning, we accompanied a senior police officer going ‘to and from’ between the Orange leaders and the nationalist residents. An arrangement was reached between police and residents

68

Brendan McAllister

Inter-mediation between the trenches when the two sides are not prepared to meet and are holding to their positions Staying in ‘no man’s land in proximity to each side Nationalist trench

• Bringing an exact message agreed with one side and communicating it to the other side without it getting changed or blocked or going astray

Unionist trench

• Ensuring that the other side do not misperceive or misunderstand the message • Speaking the language of the ordinary people and not over-using legal words or professional jargon • If you go to one group and use the wrong term, you are finished. You need to use neutral language and find words that have legitimacy to each side. • By engaging each side to talk some more and hearing their language, it becomes possible to work through their positions, interests and needs.

Brendan McAllister & Joe Campbell (1998)

Figure 5.2: The Intermediation process at Drumcree. Source: Based on Brendan McAllister & Joe Campbell (1998).

which would enable the parade to go ahead. Exhausted Police commanders informed me that this should be the last time they would have to engage in such a situation. After all the years of trouble in Portadown, every July they were now determined that this should be the last one. With this in mind, I spoke to the most senior police officer present and observed that it would be easier for residents’ leaders to secure the cooperation of their side if they knew that this would be the last time a parade would be pushed through their area. In reply, the senior officer assured me that there was no question of future parades going ahead without the consent of the local community. The senior officer volunteered this assurance because he was anxious that the 1995 parade would end peacefully. He was concerned that if it ended with violent scenes, disorder would spread to Belfast by evening and the whole ceasefire would be in danger. Consequently, I relayed the police position to leaders of the protesting crowd. I also spoke briefly to the crowd, encouraging them to follow their leaders who had been negotiating with the police. This information seemed crucial to pacifying the nationalist crowd and enabling the parade to proceed without further incident. However, when I informed the Police that I wished to meet with the Orange side to ensure that they understood the situation, they replied that due to concerns for public order there was no more time for discussion. The parade came quietly down the road a short time later. Nationalist residents felt that, while they had conceded in the end, they had done enough to score a major moral victory and would not be taken for granted again. Orange leaders and the unionist politicians accompanying them were more ecstatic. They had overcome their opponents; their pride was restored and their sense of

5 Insider Mediation of Contentious Parading

69

entitlement reaffirmed. They were received back into Portadown as conquering heroes returning from battle. The Garvaghy Road situation was a major national and international media event. There was great relief in the air that a situation which had threatened to break the ceasefire and destabilise the peace process had been resolved with a negotiated outcome. And, from my point of view, peace mediation had now arrived into the public imagination as a new way of dealing with conflict. However, once the dust settled and the heat of Summer gave way to Autumn the flaws and shortcomings of our mediation became more apparent. The 1995 stand-off – Drumcree One – was resolved in negotiations which we facilitated on the ground between senior police and the residents. There had been no real meeting of minds between residents and Orangemen. My point of understanding with the Police which had been significant in calming the situation was later denied by the senior officer concerned. Unionist and Orange speeches about victory and celebration were heard by the nationalist side as evidence that the unionist sense of superiority had not, in fact, diminished and that the core problem remained. While the mediation of Drumcree One had certainly helped to resolve the immediate crisis, a wider and deeper parades conflict had only just begun.

Hardening of positions on both sides 1995–1996 Throughout the next four years the divisions became more entrenched with the local Orangemen gaining disciplined support from members of the wider Orange Order. They were suspicious of everyone, especially people outside of the Order. Crucial to their relationship problems with the nationalist community in Portadown, the residents' group were led by a former republican prisoner and were viewed as having a sinister Republican ‘united Ireland’ agenda. On the other side, the Garvaghy residents' group were resentful and increasingly cynical. They had seen their perception of a ground-breaking accommodation at the end of Drumcree One in 1995 immediately being de-constructed by the Orangemen, who, contrary to expectations, refused to enter dialogue with them. The residents also became increasingly distrustful of the police, viewing them as partisan, particularly when the RUC Deputy Chief Constable denied the indication he had given to the Mediation Network that parades would require consent from the local community. Naturally, they now became sceptical of the Mediation Network, viewing us as– wittingly or unwittingly – assisting the police agenda. Their primary demand was for direct dialogue with the local Orangemen as a sign of basic respect. Efforts by the Mediation Network to engage Portadown Orange District via unionist politicians and clergy proved ineffective. In the year between Drumcree One and Two, there was no mediation.

70

Brendan McAllister

Drumcree Two 1996 In July 1996, the RUC again decided to block the parade leading to a stand-off for over four days due to the failure to find a solution over the winter months. The Orange Order’s battle plan swung into operation with massive protests at Drumcree and disruption across Northern Ireland. Loyalist paramilitaries got involved and Michael McGoldrick, a Catholic taxi driver, was murdered. This led to further widespread disorder and cross community tension. Two new mediation initiatives attempted to find a way out of the impasse. A senior Northern Ireland Office (NIO) official acting on behalf of the British government, John Steele, contacted both sides with exploratory offers, but to no avail. Second, under the auspices of the four Church Leaders, Archbishop Robin Eames convened a meeting at the Ulster Carpets factory, a neutral place on the Garvaghy Road. The Orangemen agreed to send delegates on the understanding that Breandan Mac Cionnaith [Brendan McKenna], a republican and the Garvaghy leader, would not be directly involved. When they discovered his presence at the factory, they left. The residents’ hopes of direct engagement were dashed. When they returned to the Garvaghy Road, they found the police were already facing down local residents to allow a parade down the road. Yet by now, relationships between the Orange Order and the police were also negative. In the Mediation Network, we deeply regretted the turn of events and their impact on a fragile peace. Mediation suffered huge discredit for the second time with both sides losing confidence in the concept and its relevance. Everyone felt misled about the carpet factory meeting, including the church leaders themselves. For his part, Archbishop Eames was relying on the moral authority of his office to bring the two sides together (McCreary 2004). There was inadequate preparation, with no structured or agreed mediation process. Yet civil society was making strenuous efforts to address the marching conflict. We were learning fast the complexities of offering multi-party dialogue in a local situation in the full view of the wider political situation: – Both sides were fearful of the possible wider implications of the Drumcree standoff. – The inability of the Orange Order to recognise the bona fides of the residents’ group in their authentic representation of large numbers of local people. – The reality that the Orange Order was a cultural expression of unionism and would not engage in dialogue with ‘republicans’ while unionist politicians at the higher level refused to do so. – The question remained: How do we enable the parties to this conflict to engage in dialogue without feeling that they have undermined their principles?

5 Insider Mediation of Contentious Parading

71

Drumcree Three 1997 The British government invited a British academic, Dr Peter North, to lead a ‘Review of Parades and Marches’. This led to the establishment of a Parades Commission with powers to regulate all parades and adjudicate on issues of contention. Significantly, it would also support the mediation of disputes and would have a team of ‘authorised officers’ to promote local accommodations before an adjudication was made. However, the Commission struggled to establish its credibility with the Orange side virtually dismissing its authority and the nationalist side deeply suspicious of the new state-sponsored body. In November 1996, a number of Orange leaders formed the ‘Spirit of Drumcree’ group and took steps to harden the Orange Order’s opposition to the Commission and to mediation. In 1997, before the Parades Commission had taken on its full powers and the RUC still had the decision-making role, the police authorised the Drumcree parade to go ahead under tighter conditions. Worried about Loyalist paramilitary violence breaking out again, the new Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, hastily convened proximity talks at Hillsborough, near Belfast. Unfortunately, this proved to be a non-event. Both sides turned up with no confidence in the initiative but each felt obliged to be seen to cooperate. With John Steele’s assistance, Mo Mowlam kept up efforts to broker a deal until two nights before Drumcree Sunday. Each side found the experience of waiting for long periods in separate rooms debilitating. In the early hours of Drumcree Sunday, police and soldiers took the Garvaghy Road by force, wearing dark boiler suits, balaclavas, helmets and riot gear. The police and army held the road all morning, sealing in large numbers of the protesting residents, who suffered many injuries. By lunch time, the parade had been forced down the road and the police and army withdrew amidst bitter recrimination and rioting which spread to outraged nationalist areas in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland.

Drumcree Four 1998 Another year passed with the stakes higher and even more complicated. All three governments – London, Dublin and Washington – were anxious to protect the historic political agreement that was signed on Good Friday,10th April 1998 and were determined that Drumcree must not threaten the fragile peace nor weaken pro-agreement unionism. The Drumcree dispute was a litmus test of the peace agreement: for unionists, a test of whether the British tradition would be upheld; for nationalists, a test of whether unionist domination had really ended. In the two weeks before Drumcree Sunday, an attempt by prime minister Tony Blair and his Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell, to get agreement among the party leaders in Belfast, including a last minute

72

Brendan McAllister

effort at proximity talks between Orange leaders and nationalist residents, did not achieve a breakthrough. The Parades Commission re-routed the return part of the Drumcree parade away from the Garvaghy Road. Renewed violence erupted on the streets with barricades, petrol bomb attacks and hijackings, and attacks on police. British Army engineers and other troops were drafted in to fortify and block the road from Drumcree church. Thousands of loyalists turned up to protest, believing the government would once again give in and let them march. Powell (2008, p. 129) held last minute proximity talks but recalls that moment: “I had never before encountered such unreasonableness from both sides.” On the Sunday morning, there was consternation across the community at the deaths of three young Catholic boys, the Quinns, in an overnight sectarian arson attack on their home in Ballymoney. Rev William Bingham, an Orange leader, called for the protest to end with a powerful statement: “A road is not worth a life”. Other Orange leaders followed suit. After six days of protest, the standoff at Drumcree Four ended amidst acrimony at great cost to everyone, especially three innocent children. It was viewed as a major set-back for Orangemen, increasing militancy within their ranks. Harold Gracey, the Portadown District Master, established a caravan at the church to maintain a token presence until the day or year when the Orange Order could return to the Garvaghy Road. With the Drumcree conflict poisoning relationships, sectarianism increased across Northern Ireland. Twelve Catholic families moved out of their homes and two shops were bombed. Anxious not to leave one side feeling defeated and humiliated, Powell (2008, p. 131) re-convened the proximity talks in mid July 1998 followed by a fourth round in early 1999 to try to find a solution. The Residents aired the idea of a Portadown civic forum supported by a £5m community fund but when civil servants produced a blueprint, the residents found themselves in a minority in the composition of the forum. The Orange Order continued to refuse to engage in dialogue, producing more frustration and a loss of momentum.

Drumcree Five 1999 With Drumcree Five imminent, Jonathan Powell brought together political and legal representatives at Stormont Castle, along with other Orangemen (but no Orange members of Portadown District). Tony Blair became directly involved with both sides. Some Orange leaders felt confident that, if they kept protest to a minimum, a parade would follow before too long. Meanwhile, caught in the middle of the crisis, the Church of Ireland produced a set of principles whereby a local church hosting a parade would seek pledges from the Orangemen about their conduct. This could have provided relief but the local Drumcree rector, Rev John Pickering, was unwilling to close Drumcree

5 Insider Mediation of Contentious Parading

73

church to the Orangemen because: “It was wrong to prevent anyone from worshipping God.” (McCreary 2004, p. 216). The Parades Commission re-routed the parade for the second successive year. The army secured the area with elaborate engineering along with a strong police presence. Protest was kept low key. The estimated five thousand who turned up for the parade on the Sunday morning were encouraged to leave after a short rally. After the drama of previous years, Drumcree Sunday 1999 became a huge anti-climax for the general public. In the autumn, political and legal representatives of Portadown District played a more significant role. In a major shift, they met the Parades Commission and demonstrated a genuine effort to defuse the Drumcree conflict though still without engaging in direct dialogue with the residents' leaders who by now had lost trust in Government led initiatives. Downing Street continued with their efforts to limit the potential political damage of Drumcree upon the peace process. To great fanfare, a South African mediator, Brian Curran, was introduced. However, in time his efforts would also run aground. With all sides reaching exhaustion and the peace process having weathered its storms, the Drumcree dispute eventually ran out of steam and transformed into a frozen conflict on the margins of civic and community life.

Difficulties with mediation In summary, between Drumcree One and Five, there were two community-based mediation initiatives and at least five senior level efforts at proximity talks, none of which involved dialogue between the two principal protagonists of the residents' group and the Orange Portadown District. In terms of mediation, many lessons can be drawn from the difficulties encountered in these interventions. Here are some of them. – A common feature was that ‘process design’ was inadequate or even nonexistent. It is now an accepted convention that mediation processes need to be carefully constructed with the cooperation of the parties and supported by their constituencies. In the Drumcree conflict, there was little attention paid to the preparation of the parties, establishing achievable objectives and securing the mediation space. Mediation was typically viewed as potentially a fundamental threat and there was much enduring suspicion of the mediators. Without confidence in the mediator and commitment to the process, the discipline and commitment which mediation needs from its participants was never developed. In fairness, the so-called ‘mediation space’ was always narrow. Certainly, in my own case, political, community and security factors meant there was limited capacity to design mediation in the style that textbooks would suggest. – The core ethos of the mediation process is the consent of the parties. In the Drumcree conflict, it was often the case that mediation was being foisted upon people who were actually opposed to a negotiated outcome. Mediation was

74

–

–

–

–

–

–

Brendan McAllister

invariably perceived as requiring compromise in a situation where compromise was viewed as an existential threat. On both sides, mediation remained a dangerous concept. Residents resented the commonly held assumption that the only accommodation possible was an Orange parade which would simply be more sensitive to their feelings – but still an Orange parade. Orangemen resented the expectation that they should sit down in dialogue with unworthy opponents and legitimise them, thereby compromising their own sense of integrity. Interventions were driven by an outside agenda in each case rather than being generated with the parties. This is especially true of the proximity talks launched by the British government which, understandably but inappropriately, were driven by political and security priorities rather than the communal issues at the heart of the parades conflict. In political terms, the Drumcree situation quickly became a ‘proxy war’ – a local dispute in which the bigger societal conflict found expression and from which bigger players, on all sides, sought advantage. We see this problem writ large in all of the significant conflicts of our times – from Syria, to Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine and beyond – situations in which geopolitical tensions and rivalries exacerbate and even exploit the conflict, preventing a more localised or national resolution from taking hold. The term ‘mediation’ has been used and abused over the years to cover a range of activity from facilitation to negotiation. The common assumption is that mediators only care about getting a deal. In my own experience, the use of ‘transformative mediation’ is more effective where more attention is paid to the transformation of relationships. The whole idea of dialogue was viewed differently by each group. Orangemen viewed it as an act of submission. Nationalists viewed it as a sign of respect. I found it more helpful and less threatening to speak of ‘communication’ and the importance of ‘engagement with those who oppose you’ – as something that might be in one’s best interests. For Orangemen, the issues were specific and technical – that is, only about the practical arrangements for a parade. For residents, the issues were contextual – that is, about the social context in which the parades took place and the need to address the deeper underlying issues. The conflict was also systemic, reaching across many different constituencies and multiple levels from the individual to families and communities. Indeed, a sense of loyalty and honour to the dead of previous generations who fought in world wars was a factor to be weighed. This was particularly true for the Orangemen. A mediator might think they have engaged “the Orange Order” when in reality they had formed only a tentative relationship with a few individuals who must bring their District and County brethren (the wider membership) with them on such an important institutional and emotional issue. Indeed, the Orange Order reflected the breadth of unionist opinion, from moderates who supported the peace process

5 Insider Mediation of Contentious Parading

75

to conservatives who distrusted the whole enterprise of a ‘peace process’ which seemed guaranteed to ultimately concede to the enemy. Similarly, for the residents' leaders, they had to report back to community meetings sometimes attended by hundreds of people. Their wider pro-dialogue constituency reflected a range of opinion from moderates who could accept the parading tradition to hardliners who wished to bring down something they believed was outrageously sectarian. Therefore, the principal protagonists represented different sub-cultures with different traditions of leadership, and decision making. Any viable process has to take account of the need for representatives to establish and maintain the goodwill of their respective constituency. In the field of peacebuilding, mediation does not necessarily resolve conflict; rather, it makes a contribution to the management or resolution of conflict over a time period.

The complexity of the Drumcree conflict The Drumcree dispute was essentially an identity conflict, rather than one which was based on conflicting interests. As one resident said, “Drumcree is Northern Ireland writ small”. One side felt their British identity was under threat by a loss of territory while the other side felt their Irish identity was under threat by enforced submissiveness and lack of respect. And there was a third group – the police – who experienced relationship problems with both sides of a deeply divided society. Police officers mainly came from the Protestant tradition and when they did not conform to unionist expectations, this created a sense of betrayal among many Orangemen and in the wider Protestant community. On the other hand, the nationalist residents viewed the RUC as partisan and that upholding ‘public order’ in reality meant maintaining the old (Orange) order. Their leaders perceived a contrast between the RUC’s readiness to prosecute nationalist protestors and their inability to prosecute Orangemen and loyalists for a litany of misdemeanours. In effect, Drumcree boiled down to only one conflict – whether an Orange parade should go down the Garvaghy Road or not. To reach agreement on a win-lose binary issue like this is most difficult for mediation particularly under crisis conditions. Mediators know it is best to construct an agenda of multiple issues so there can be trade-offs to meet interests to be achieved over a period of time. However, mutually beneficial outcomes cannot happen without relational acknowledgement and change. Portadown District Orangemen refused to engage with the Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition and in the end the residents eventually came to see no value in engaging with the District anyway. Toleration for each other’s identity was missing. Like all conflict, the Drumcree parades dispute did not remain static, inert or impervious to changing circumstances. It was constantly evolving. It developed an emotional life of its own affected by personalities and events. The longer it lasted, the more

76

Brendan McAllister

the issues multiplied with layers of complexity. The apparent clarity of 1995 stands in contrast to the complexity of 1999. Generations were involved as the integrity of this ancient quarrel was handed down from one generation to the next. Of course, there was a huge cost. Community relations in Portadown had hardened. Six people had been murdered since 1996 and many had sustained injuries, either through sectarian attack or on the receiving end of over enthusiastic policing. Catholics had been intimidated from their homes. The collective suffering turned out to be a price that many were willing to pay in pursuit of a greater prize. – For the Portadown Orange District, the prize was the survival of a cultural tradition: to parade to Church, to attend worship and then parade back into town along the traditional route of Garvaghy Road. Implicit in the right to march was the need to protect a religious liberty and a traditional civil entitlement to maintain ethnic integrity. If a parade continued to be denied, at least they derived a grim satisfaction from taking a stand against an insincere State and a nationalist tradition that seemed intent on disrespecting or even deconstructing the Protestant way of life. – For the Garvaghy Residents’ Coalition, the prize was to achieve equality with an acknowledgement of their long-term discrimination and segregation as a nationalist minority in Northern Ireland. Ending the parade going through their neighbourhood would win a major concession from the Orange Order and from the wider unionist community. How might mediation have made a more constructive contribution to the Drumcree conflict? It would have required a slower more transformational approach geared to improving the capacity of each side to hear and consider the impact of asserting their rights on the other community. This could be achieved through a storytelling and narrative approach rather than the ‘interest based’ problem solving model. Where people are immersed in an identity conflict, they tend to view compromise as a threat that is requesting them to sacrifice their interests in order to retain their sense of integrity. On the other hand, a narrative approach places greater emphasis on creating a ‘mediation space’ where each side can listen deeply to each other. Relationships in time become altered. People are not asked to concede their beliefs but instead to revise their analysis and their behaviour in the light of new information and understandings of ‘the other’. People are not asked to stop being themselves but instead become more than themselves. These are some of the features of mediation in the service of reconciliation.

Present situation More than twenty-five years later, the goal of the Orange Order to parade freely on the second Sunday in July along its ‘traditional route’ to Portadown down the Garvaghy

5 Insider Mediation of Contentious Parading

77

Road from the Drumcree church has not been achieved. No parade has walked the controversial road since it was pushed down by police and soldiers in 1998. Harold Gracey was one of the Portadown Orange leaders who maintained a vigil from 1999 in his caravan outside the Drumcree church until he passed away in March 2004. It is a frozen conflict which no longer registers significance on the wider public radar of Northern Ireland but which continues to inhibit the development of a more cohesive and thriving community in Portadown and beyond. One can only hope that, with the passage of time, younger and emerging generations will be less affected by its inherited traumas and less enthralled to its totemic power.

5.2 Case Study – Solving parading issues in Derry/ Londonderry: Pre-mediation in preparing parties for engagement for face-to-face negotiations Michael Doherty The city of Derry/ Londonderry sits at the base of Lough Foyle in the northwest of Northern Ireland bordering County Donegal in the Republic of Ireland. It has a Catholic and/or Nationalist majority and is therefore different to the northeast, which up to now has had a Protestant and/or Unionist majority. These different demographics had a part to play in the emergence over a number of years of what became known as the “Derry Model” to resolve historic problems over traditional parades. It came about in a number of stages.

Background to parading groups Northern Ireland has had a long history of parading issues that are sectarian in nature, mainly because of the make-up and structure of the two main parading organisations. For example, to be a member of the Orange Order, you must be Protestant. In a mirror image of Orangeism, to be a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH) you must be Catholic. Both of these institutions developed separately in the 1800’s and for the most part in defence of their own respective faiths and identities. The main parading day for the Orange Order is 12 July celebrating the victory of Protestant King William of Orange over Catholic King James II at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. Another Orange parading organisation connected to the Loyal Orders – embracing the Orange Order and The Royal Black Preceptory or The Royal Arch Purple – is the Apprentice Boys of Derry (ABOD) who commemorate the shutting of the gates of the walls of the city of Derry/Londonderry against the army of Catholic King

78

Michael Doherty

James II in 1689. They parade on the nearest Saturday to 12 August and nowadays also the first Saturday in December. On the Catholic AOH side, their main parading day is 15 August celebrating the feast of the Assumption of our Lady into Heaven – a Catholic holy day. Other parades take place every year and these include loyalist and republican commemoration parades, church parades and civic parades. In any one year there are approximately 5,000 parades all over Northern Ireland, most of which pass off peacefully. During the 1990’s, protest groups now called Residents Groups were set up in some areas because parades belonging to the Loyal Orders were going into catholic and/or nationalist areas where they were not welcome. The business centre of Derry suffered badly from riots in August 1997 with burnt-out cars and much damage to shops. There was widespread concern among the business community that this could happen again.

Stage 1: Shuttle mediation process agreed The Parades Commission (PC) was set up in 1997 by the British government to make determinations on parades after a contentious and unresolved issue between residents of Portadown’s Garvaghy Road and the local Orange Order. This is now known as the “Drumcree Church Parade Issue”. When the Parades Commission was set up, it set a policy that any group wishing to parade must complete various documentation and apply for permission to parade 28 days in advance of it taking place. Likewise, if some individual or body wished to protest against this parade, they too would have to complete various documentation 14 days before the parade was due to take place. All necessary documentation was then considered by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) who would mark completed forms with either being “Contentious” or “Non-Contentious”. Finally, all forms then go to the Parades Commission who make a determination on the respective parade or protest. I was appointed to the Authorised Officers Unit (AOU) of the Parades Commission in 1998 and, along with another AOU, designated to the two areas of Derry/ Londonderry and Portadown. Our task was to see if we could get an agreement between the respective groups at the early stage of the process so that the Parades Commission would not find themselves having to make a determination on contentious parades. In relation to the Apprentice Boys parade, I was fortunate to know some members of the ABOD and members of the Bogside Residents Group (BRG) from my work in Community Relations development programmes and was aware of the issues and emotions around these local parades. I recognised the difficulty facing the ABOD who were reluctant to enter into face-to-face negotiations with the BRG. I was also aware that the ABOD did not take up the same position as other Loyal Orders such as

5 Insider Mediation of Contentious Parading

79

the Orange Order who did not allow their members to talk to anyone from the Parades Commission or BRG members. In my AOU role, I made an approach to one of the senior members of the ABOD and explored the possibility of a shuttle mediation process where there would be no face-to-face meetings but the mediators would take communications back and forth between them. He consulted with others and then informed me they would be willing to engage with such a process. I eventually met with members of the BRG who also agreed to the shuttle mediation proposal. This was how it all began: both groups wanted a peaceful settlement to parading issues in the city of Derry/Londonderry.

3 Named BRG negotiators

Shuttle Mediation Process for resolving parading disputes

1

Decision makers within BRG

2

1

Shuttle mediator goes back and forth between the parties

3

Bogside Residents Association (BRG) on the western side of the city outside the walls

3 Named ABOD negotiators

2

3 Multiple roles of shuttle mediator: – Intermediary – Messenger – Negotiator – Persuader

Decision makers within ABOD Apprentice Boys of Derry (ABOD) from the eastern Waterside of the city across the bridge

Figure 5.3: The shuttle mediation process in Londonderry.

We then agreed that the ABOD and the BRG would stay in their respective areas with named negotiators on each side having direct access to their back-line decision makers. Both groups agreed that the mediators would only meet with the three named negotiators from each side at any given time. On 31 July 1998, both sides agreed to enter into a professional shuttle mediation process in order to attain a voluntary accommodation and a peaceful day on the 8 August 1998 (the nearest Saturday to 12 August). Seven ground rules were agreed at the initial separate meetings with the respective (see Table 5.1) groups before the shuttle mediation process began. This ensured that all the communication between the groups remained confidential. The shuttle mediation locations were kept confidential, with a media blackout and with the mediators travelling between the three-person negotiating teams with proposals and responses. This lasted over three days. It began at 4pm on Saturday afternoon 1 August 1998 and kept going all through the night until early Sunday

80

Michael Doherty

Table 5.1: Ground rules for the shuttle mediation process. Ground rules for the shuttle mediation process Numbers

 from each side with no substitutes

Venues

To be kept secret only known to mediators and their respective parties

Press/ Media

Total silence until it is over

Facilitators

To be kept secret

Acknowledgement

No direct negotiations (but the BRG would like direct negotiations)

Time frame Conditions

pm August st until it’s over and with necessary breaks If any conditions/ground rules are breached by any side the mediation process is finished.

morning at 6:30am. We reconvened the next morning and just before 2.00pm on the Monday an agreement was reached. A BRG spokesperson, welcomed the decision, saying, “Although we would have preferred face-to-face talks, the ABOD took a significant step forward by engaging in negotiations. This result shows what can happen when people enter into dialogue in a meaningful way. If this had been applied to the Drumcree situation, we may not have experienced the tragedies that occurred.” What is in the public domain in relation to the ABOD parade accommodation in Derry was reported by Gerry Moriarty in the Belfast Telegraph (Wednesday 5 August 1998) “that the incoming accommodation reached by the ABOD and the BRG, senior churchmen and politicians also hoped that the understanding would serve as a model for solving other contentious parades including that of Drumcree”. He also stated that Mo Mowlam, the Secretary of State at the time said: “the accommodation in Derry proved both communities could benefit from negotiation, notwithstanding that it had been indirect”. She believed it could serve as an example of how other contentious parades could be resolved”.

Stage 2: Partnership emerges between civic leaders When the signed accommodation was reached on 3 August 1998 between the ABOD and the BRG, there had been a verbal understanding with the mediators that the ABOD would meet directly with the business community in the future to discuss further parades in the city. This happened over a period of time. The big positive in the situation was that all of the key business leaders in the city were committed to stopping the city from being placed in a ring of steel by the security forces. The business community wanted the city to be seen in a more positive light and more importantly with no damage to the local economy. The ABOD wanted their annual parades to

5 Insider Mediation of Contentious Parading

81

benefit the city and for their culture to be respected by everyone. All the groups and stakeholders involved knew that positive leadership was needed so a business partnership evolved that eventually expanded to include civic leadership.

Stage 3: Inclusive roundtable of stakeholders In 2003 the Peace and Reconciliation Group (PRG) set up a mobile phone network called “the Interface Monitoring Forum” (IMF) that included the Loyal Orders, community leaders from across the sectarian divide, the Department of Justice and Community Relation Officers from the local council and the PSNI. Community groups were able to apply to funders to develop intervention strategies to take young people from nationalist areas out of the city during the parading season. Over a number of years, the IMF succeeded in reducing the number of sectarian incidents at the interfaces in the city as well as helping to reduce tension during the parading season. There were now two main groups working to keep the city peaceful. This included the community leaders and the business community leaders. In November 2004, I was asked by the Orange Order in Derry/Londonderry to give them some advice as to how they could hold their district parade in the city in 2005. I met with them in the PRG office along with another community worker. At that meeting, I told them there would be little hope of the parade being allowed across Craigavon Bridge from the mainly Protestant Waterside to the city centre if they did not find a way to meet with the BRG, because they would hold the view of “no talk, no walk”. They did not contact me again until June 2005 when I was indirectly approached by a community worker who was also a member of the Ulster Political Research Group (UPRG) from the Waterside area of the city. He wanted to know how the Orange Order could be accommodated. I asked him to arrange a meeting for me with one of their negotiating team. This meeting took place the following day. I put the following possible process arrangement to him: if they agreed to go into a meeting with the BRG, local businessmen, clergy and community workers – that would be chaired by a local businessman with all points directed through the chair – then they could be in a position to say they did not have direct negotiations with the BRG. Thankfully, this process was well received and an agreement was eventually reached through further extensive negotiations. It became a game changer.

Stage 4: Derry Model recognised When the ABOD decided to enter into dialogue albeit indirectly in the first instance with the BRG and then eventually face to face with the BRG and the business leaders, it paved the way for setting an example to others of how contentious issues that seemed intractable could achieve a positive outcome when relationships and

82

Michael Doherty

trust are established through the process. The overall focus of the dialogue in both the indirect and direct meetings was the commitment by all of the key stakeholders in the city of wanting to get a resolution to bring about an end to years of conflict around parades. The city is now being held up as a model for other areas where there is conflict. In fact, a programme launched in 2018 and funded by EU Peace IV called “The Derry Model – Conflict Transformation and Peace Building Project” has been initiated. The aim of this project is to teach others nationally and internationally who struggle with conflict related issues to tap into resources from protagonists in the conflict in Derry/ Londonderry.

References McCreary, A. (2004). Nobody’s Fool: The Life of Archbishop Robin Eames. Hodder & Stoughton. O’Doherty, M. (2019). Fifty Years On. Atlantic Books. Powell, J. (2008). Great Hatred, Little Room: Making Peace in Northern Ireland. Bodley Head. Workable Peace: March at Dundee (1999). This is a simulation role play about the Drumcree dispute that allows participants to experience and explore the dynamics of a multi-party dispute involving five parties. The name has been changed from Drumcree to Dundee to protect anonymity. Published by the Consensus Building Institute, Boston MA.

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots Abstract: The Corrymeela Community experience in promoting an ‘Island of Peace’ (Shona Bell) – The road to an island at peace with itself and others is a long one. The Corrymeela Community have lived and learned from the ongoing human tragedy of conflict in NI for over fifty years. There are narratives of brokenness woven throughout both communities. Unless peacemakers continue to pursue the relational, structural and policy dimensions of working for peace, there is the capacity for the situation to unravel again and for the conflict to escalate at short notice. The role played by organised labour against sectarian violence (Seán Byers) – The efforts of labour activists and workers’ movements to combat the threat of sectarian violence in workplaces and communities during the thirty-year Northern Ireland conflict and subsequent peace process have not received the attention they deserve. The response of organised labour to the outbreak of violence in 1969 and how trade unions addressed employment discrimination and workplace sectarianism are examined. The surge in grassroots trade union mobilisation against violence supported a change in public opinion that led to the 1998 political settlement. Areas for future research are identified. Reflections on the Hard Gospel Project (Rev Earl Storey) – The Church of Ireland was one Christian denomination in Ireland who addressed the issue of sectarianism and living constructively with difference. The strategic aims, process and thinking of the Hard Gospel Project are outlined. The denomination asked itself if there were things it did or said that contributed to division with the purpose of taking action on them. Observations are made on the learning and limitations of the project. Peace history of the ‘Troubles’: Piecing it together (Rob Fairmichael) – ‘Peace history’ includes the stories of citizens, civilians and civil society movements going beyond the story of wars and rulers. It is about understanding who did what to try to avoid violence and the positive contributions made by diverse people to make possible a peaceful settlement. On the negative side, the factors that exacerbate situations, leading to further violence and injustice, also must be understood. Peace movements experience peaks and troughs: sometimes sailing along with strong winds of public opinion and at other times keeping going when the going gets tough. Keywords: relationships, trust, Corrymeela, Northern Ireland, sectarianism, trade unions, fair employment, Church of Ireland, Hard Gospel Project, peace history, civil society movements, peace movements, community mobilisation

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-006

84

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

Introduction Geoffrey Corry There have been several efforts to define sectarianism in the Northern Ireland context over the years and particularly by ecumenical church groups despite resistance to the idea that it even existed. Here is a generic description that Joseph Liechty and Cecilia Clegg (2001: p. 102) devised for their project sponsored by the Irish School of Ecumenics and comparing it with racism: Sectarianism is a system of attitudes, actions, beliefs and structures which arises as a distorted expression of positive, human needs especially for belonging, identity and the free expression of difference and is expressed in destructive patterns of relationships.

Joe came from the Mennonite peace movement in the United States and his introduction to this topic was when he was a member of the Inter-Church Working Party on Sectarianism (1993) chaired by Mary McAleese [later President of Ireland] that sat for two years from 1991–1993. There were difficult conversations in that forum: “tempers and tears were not uncommon” (McAleese, 2020: p. 153) but it taught Mary “the phenomenal value of sustained encounter with ‘the other’ in a managed environment” and to nudge towards consensus. In more ordinary words, the Inter-Church report (1993: pp. 69–76) described sectarianism as a disease in the hearts and minds of people that “diminishes us as Christian people” and was transmitted consciously or unconsciously through family, school and church. Despite the complexity of the topic, they came to the conclusion that sectarian loathing, fear and hatred was a learned process starting in the home almost as a hidden agenda. They hoped that the fervent grip of sectarianism would be weakened and ultimately broken “in the small things we do and say”. A more recent review of sectarianism by Duncan Morrow (2019: p. 6) frames the problem as one where people often have a hostile experience of everyday life because “our knowledge of each other too often relies on received or second-hand knowledge or presumptions shaped by trauma.” Prejudice thrives in a climate of fear. He identifies three other elements: (1) belonging to an identity is tied to ‘not being them’, as well as deep memories of injury and struggle in their community against the other; (2) the divided structure of political life, cultural and sporting life, education and expectations of marriage and family; (3) long years of experience convince people that they must be wary about where they live, where they go, how they speak in public and what they wear. Yet Duncan reminds us that many friendships do thrive in spite of sectarianism provided you avoid giving offence and not discuss divisive issues. To go back to Joe Liechty (1995), he did not want to minimise the contribution of religion as a significant component of sectarianism from which “experiences of subjection, fear and separation” are derived. He identified three specific ways by which the toxicity of sectarian attitudes impacted on ordinary people: (1) belittling

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

85

or demonising rival groups, (2) reinforcing boundaries between rival groups, or (3) justifying or enabling the domination of rival groups. The four case studies examine efforts made by three particular civil society organisations to respond to efforts to recognise and acknowledge the hidden toxicity in the culture of organisations – the wider community, the church and the workplace. It was not an easy piece of work with peacemaking pioneers constantly coming up against politeness, avoidance and denial that has tended to inhibit community relations progress in Northern Ireland. Counteract and Trademark played an innovative role in combatting sectarian displays in the workplace in collaboration with trade unions in all the employment sectors, particularly in providing one-to-one support and advice to workers.

6.1 Case Study – The Corrymeela Community experience in promoting an ‘Island of Peace’ Shona Bell Corrymeela predates the Troubles and was established in 1965 based on the vision of Presbyterian minister, Rev Ray Davey, to open an Ecumenical Christian Centre open to all. Drawing on the ecumenical history of the Confessing Church in Germany that stood against Hitler, Davey drew on his wartime experience of running a YMCA centre for Allied soldiers in Tobruk in North Africa, and other centres like Iona in Scotland and Agape in northern Italy. As a prisoner of war (1943–1945) in Italy and Germany during the Second World War, he was appalled by the death toll in the Allied bombing of Dresden. Davey (1985, p.70) wrote: “The Dresden experience in all its horror and suffering once again highlighted for me the tragedy of broken relationships between the nations, the lack of real community between people and the price that was and is being paid, because we cannot live together as a genuine family and a true community.” At its heart, and when they work well together, Corrymeela members, staff and volunteers seek to live that dream; they recognise that when relationships are established, new ways of being and new patterns of trust can develop. I write from a place of deep, experiential knowledge and hopefully wisdom about the everyday realities of people who bear the continued brunt of partially realized peace from the Good Friday Agreement/Belfast accord. At the same time, I also admire and respect knowledge that comes out of scholarly and policy-driven research. Where unresolved legacies of conflict remain, we have learned that lived experience of conflict adds richness and density to our thinking and conversations. There have been six stages of developmental work at Corrymeela along with multiple expressions of practice extending over fifty years.

86

Shona Bell

1. A place of respite As the violence erupted in the 1970s, particularly in the dense urban areas of Belfast and Derry/Londonderry, Corrymeela became a place where people could come away to exhale and feel both welcomed and supported. We tried to create a hospitable, welcoming and nurturing place – to “hold” a safe space for people – where their fears could settle and their human instinct to fight or flee was reduced. A place where they could just ‘be’ without threat. These were very unstable times, with stories of crisis response, busloads of children and sardine sleeping. It was purposeful, immediate and inspirational. In reflecting back now on what happened, we have mourned that time: we were all focused on the most basic of human needs sitting in front of us – human security and safety. It was heady and important to be part of what felt so meaningful to weary and conflict-torn families. 2. Cross-Community contact Because of the relationships and trust we had built over those early years, we recognised there was an opportunity to go further, to take the next step and build relationships of trust across the many divides. My initial role back in the 90s was both as volunteer and then Community Relations Education Worker. We intentionally brought together children, communities, schools, churches, youth groups from different sides of the conflict in cross-community gatherings. Conditions were primitive for school groups – wooden bunk beds and drafty halls with the wind blowing in from the sea. Yet people have great stories from those extraordinary times – even marriages blossomed. Although we do sometimes wonder if this was community relations by hormones, rather than relationships! 3. Recognise the possibilities but also the limitations of contact theory It did not take long for us to understand that cross community contact can bring forward a mountaintop experience, especially in such a beautiful and nurturing environment on top of the cliff at Corrymeela. But there was the inevitable downside. Powerful emotional and relational experiences can become quickly dissipated by the return to real life back down in the city. Returning home, children were reminded of the exceptionality of these positive cross-group experiences. Sometimes, the experience lingered as an important question mark in the head of that individual, but it was never going to be enough to counter the sectarian powerhouse (beliefs, attitudes, everyday behaviours) created and sustained within their community. Simply put, the contact theory of increasing ‘contact’ was not enough and yet the ‘at a distance’ lenses employed by some academics failed to honour what we, and many others, often conscientiously embraced. We were involved in more than casual contact; we were part of new and often deep relationships that made us all a little more whole and human.

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

87

4. Empower influential leaders and agents of change Our programme team continued to reflect and learn from what we were doing – not just to pull people out of fragile settings but also to empower influential people who lived inside those communities and support capacity building. We had to revisit our beliefs about change. This realisation led us, in the early 2000s, to switch resources into civic empowerment and teacher training. This, we thought, would lead to a seeding of concepts of reconciliation into the wider organisations of our society. However, we quickly realised that a training course and developing resources were never going to be enough to build the capacity of the individual; they were embedded in very strong, historic and problematic systems and structures. Our work within civil society often went up against a fragmented and incoherent political vision. We realised there were limits to reconciliation endeavours in a conflictaffected society. 5. Tackle systems and structures that uphold or perpetuate the root causes of violence In recent years, we began addressing structural issues around the power of residual violence and the need for new and coherent collaborations between and beyond statutory agencies and non governmental organisations. We started putting into place ways to measure impact and influence. We launched a research project to review the question of ‘Countering Paramilitary & Organised Criminal Influence on Youth’ in partnership with the Education Authority and academics from the Ulster University. We saw this focused approach as an opportunity to recalibrate, to bring together international researchers to pour over the learning and look for a way forward. However, when COVID 19 struck in March 2019, meeting face to face was no longer possible and we had to move online. It gave us the opportunity to gather policy makers, practitioners and academics from around the globe to wrestle with the overriding theme: ‘Transitions: Moving from Violence to Peace’. We worked in partnership with the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University and the University of Ulster. We identified nine critical considerations to support constructive transitions from violence to peace. They include the need to: A. Effectively integrate and reintegrate paramilitaries into communities. B. Develop relationships of trust and credibility. C. Recognise that individuals hold multiple identities and that harmful labels may continue to provoke conflict. D. Consider the ways rituals and symbols may influence or dictate peaceful futures. E. Understand the relationship between social location, equity, power, and access. F. Honour the complexity of history and acknowledge that it is remembered in multiple ways. G. Systematically measure and evaluate our efforts to better understand if and how we are making an impact

88

Shona Bell

H. Analyse dynamics and design projects using a gender lens. I. Remain sensitive to the use of language and the terminology we use. After 24 years of the post-Good Friday or Belfast Agreement phase of our peace process, two of these themes in particular remain unresolved and still present challenges. One is (A) the full reintegration of armed and unarmed paramilitary groupings. We missed the first boat on DDR [Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration] in the first nine years after the Good Friday Agreement (1998) and the nature of the sectarian conflict has meant that the paramilitary structures both old and new prevail. They come in multiple categories. Some of these groups continue in name only (having decommissioned their weapons), some are led by former political prisoners who are now committed to local peacebuilding, but there are cohorts in urban and rural areas who have continued in drug trafficking, racketeering and local criminality. On the ground, there is still the reality that a section of our communities cannot leave paramilitary groupings because of local intimidation and physical threats. Some people want to leave but come under great difficulty due to limited resources and tight social networks. A second unresolved peace process issue is (D) Ritual and Symbolism. Key controversial rituals such as parades, protests and demonstrations continue within the Orange and Green communities. The difficulty arises when many commemorative rituals do not respect the loss of victims of the Troubles and this results in continued animosity and reinforces ongoing trauma. In addition, we have to date been unable to find ways in which to commemorate the peace. As a society, this kind of ritual is not in place, which may say more about where we are in that peace process. Nevertheless, contrasts to violent ways have always existed and will always exist. They too need to be amplified and acknowledged. There are still opportunities to imagine what it might take to create the collective civic courage of our communities to say that criminality under the name of paramilitarism is no longer acceptable and that it is not how we choose to live. A civic society voice might still inspire those young people in our community – in whom the future rests – not to be sucked into violent protest but find more fulfilling paths through further education and apprenticeships and realise the potential for peace. 6. The Current Context After a recent wave in escalated sectarian tension and violence on the streets in Belfast, we went back to the beginning of where we started fifty years ago. I am currently hosting respite for exhausted front line peace builders in Northern Ireland. This leads me to say that the road to an island at peace with itself and others is a long one. There are narratives of brokenness woven throughout our communities and unless we continue to pursue the relational, structural and policy dimensions of

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

89

working for peace, there is the capacity for it to unravel again and for conflict to escalate at short notice. In summary, this is what we now know: – Working at the individual level is important. It is not enough. – Working at the community level is important. But it is not enough. – Working at the leadership level is important. But it is not enough. – Working at the policy and structural level is important. But it is not enough. – Working at the formal, governmental level is important. But it is not enough.

What is enough? Deep, transformational change requires working together in often new and unexpected relationships with those who disagree with us; something that is very difficult for us on this island and beyond. It also requires courage – because the foes of peace are fierce. We must continue the work of trauma informed respite, the work of relationship building, the work of capacity building, the work of accompaniment and the work of collaboration. The most important thing is that we remain persistent in the face of disillusionment. The future of our children depends upon it. I believe we have a duty as an Island at peace with itself and others to keep finding a way to integrate our citizens both new and old, to seek ways to vision our future together and to build a diverse learning community where peace is the purpose.

6.2 Case Study – The role played by organised labour against sectarian violence Seán Byers In his meticulous survey of the literature on ‘the Troubles’, John Whyte (1990: viii) remarks that “in proportion to size, Northern Ireland is the most heavily researched area on earth”. However, the role of workers’ movements remains a footnote in the history of Northern Ireland’s thirty-year conflict. Irish labour historiography is now in its fifth wave, building on the work of previous generations and yielding major advances in the study of class dynamics in Ireland (O’Connor & McCabe, 2010: 137–163). Cumulatively these waves of scholarship have made great strides towards ensuring that different facets of Irish working-class life and organisation are represented in all of their complexity, confounding the ‘master narrative’ of ethno-national conflict and division (Loughlin 2018). And yet, few systematic attempts have been made to investigate the role played by organised labour during the Troubles and peace process,

90

Seán Byers

fewer still that account for grassroots perspectives. There are some notable exceptions: Boyd (1984); Rolston (1980); Cradden (1994); O’Connor (2011). It would be a major undertaking to comprehensively address this lacuna in the literature, given the wide range of sources that remain untapped or underutilised (Byers & Pierse, 2016). Perhaps the task will be taken up by a ‘fifth wave’ scholar of Irish labour. In lieu of this, what follows is a brief account of the struggles of labour activists and organisations to deal with the persistent threat of violence and sectarianism, and secure peace in the north of Ireland.

The early years of the Troubles The violence that broke out in Derry and Belfast in August 1969 was the worst experienced since the 1930s. In retrospect, this can be understood as the point at which Northern Ireland slid irreversibly from civil unrest into armed conflict. Grassroots trade unionists were quick in their response to prevent this violence from spilling into the workplace. At the Harland & Wolff shipyard in loyalist East Belfast, shop stewards led by Sandy Scott convened a mass meeting of 8,000 workers on 15 August, amid reports that Catholic workers had stayed at home in fear of sectarian attacks. The meeting passed a resolution appealing “for all responsible people to join with us in giving a lead to break the cycle of mutual recrimination arising from dayto-day incidents”. The meeting also demanded “that the government and the forces of law and order take stronger measures to maintain the peace”. A token stoppage followed, inspiring similar actions in workplaces across the North. Shortly thereafter James McFall, a shop steward with the Boilermakers’ Union, accompanied Sandy Scott through the barricades on the Falls Road to assure Catholic shipwrights of their safe return to work (McInerney, 1970: 10–13). While one might question the support given to the very forces of law and order that were protagonists in the violence of 1969, there is no doubting the motives of the labour men and women who put their heads above the parapet at this time. Among these were the trade unionists, labourite politicians and community activists involved in the formation of peace committees in the four corners of Belfast, which mediated in local conflicts and organised vigilante patrols to protect minority populations under threat (Kelly, 2009). For its part, the Belfast Trades’ Council (1970) launched a distress fund, raising a total of £6,737 for working-class families affected by the violence. That Billy Blease, the ICTU’s senior officer in the north, made a point of praising the “quiet conciliation work of shop stewards” is suggestive of more widespread grassroots interventions in the workplace and community during this period, stories of which may be lost to posterity by the passing of those involved (ICTU, 1973: 389–392). At the same time, it is probably correct to argue that “these efforts were never generalised across the trade union movement” (Collins, 2019). The ICTU’s main

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

91

response was to distribute 30,000 copies of its Programme for Peace and Progress, which argued for the restoration of order based on gradual reform, economic development and recognition of the Unionist claim to self-determination. This practice of publishing statements would be a key feature of the ICTU’s cautious approach in the early years of the Troubles – one designed to leave politics at the factory gates, discourage loyalist trade unionism and prevent the type of division on ethno-national grounds that was typical in many other European countries. One can understand why this caution has been characterised as inertia and a tendency to compromise with the forces of reaction (Boyd 1984; O’Connor 2011). There is some truth to this analysis. However, it also underestimates the scale of the challenge facing organised labour, and perhaps overplays the extent to which the unions can be understood as a cohesive movement dancing to the tune of ICTU leaders. When Justice Scarman (1972) reported after a lengthy inquiry into the disturbances of 1969, he commended trade unionists and peace committees for their efforts to prevent the spread of violence in workplaces and communities. However, as Paul Dixon (2001: 152) has argued, these partial and temporary achievements may have “misled observers into believing they had more of a moderating influence over their members than was the case”. By the close of 1971 the situation had been transformed by a Provisional IRA offensive, the Ballymurphy massacre of ten civilians by the Parachute Regiment and the introduction of internment without trial. The latter came after some 6,000 shipyard workers had marched to the Ulster Unionist Party headquarters to demand that a policy of internment be adopted. Far from curbing republican violence, internment led to mass round-up of Catholic civilians and served as a recruiting sergeant for the IRA. 1972 was the year of atrocities, of Bloody Sunday, Bloody Friday and 496 fatalities. As the death toll mounted, the communist trade unionist Andy Barr warned ICTU conference delegates of an impending ‘sectarian war’ (ICTU, 1972: 265). Just as the violence was escalating, so did sectarian intimidation of workers continue to rear its ugly head (O’Connor, 2011). The capacity of trade unions to meet these challenges on the basis of “bread-and-butter” class politics would henceforth be severely tested.

Fair employment and workplace anti-sectarianism One of the main areas in which the questions of sectarianism and material conditions intersected was employment, a trade union issue if there ever was one. AntiCatholic job discrimination in the public sector and key industries had formed one of the grievances of the civil rights movement and came to occupy central significance in the 1970s. In 1972, with Stormont in cold storage, the British government established the van Straubenzee working group to consider measures for tackling religious discrimination in the private sector. Four NIC-ICTU and four business representatives were appointed to the committee, whose recommendations eventually resulted

92

Seán Byers

in the first Fair Employment Act (1976) and establishment of a Fair Employment Agency (FEA) with advisory, investigative and enforcement powers (Cradden, 1993). By the 1980s, internal and external pressure was building for more radical change. A decade on from the establishment of the FEA, the unemployment rate of Catholics stood at double that of Protestants, while the problem of sectarian intimidation and associated “chill factors” in workplaces remained. Moreover, an FEA inquiry found that officials of an ICTU affiliate – the General, Municipal and Boilermakers’ (GMB) – had discriminated against two of its Catholic members, something critics believed was “the tip of the iceberg” with regards to internal union practices (Cradden, 1993: 483). While the NIC-ICTU had been edging towards a stronger line on the question of employment equality, it was the launch of the MacBride Principles in 1984 that “transformed the debate” (O’Connor, 2011: 284). The MacBride Principles contained nine affirmative action proposals geared towards the eradication of religious discrimination in employment, and the international campaign behind them brought the weight of Irish-American opinion to bear on the British government. The biggest challenge from a trade union perspective was not so much the proposals themselves as the fact their strongest adherents were to be found in the republican movement. Rather than risk alienating sections of its membership by hitching its wagon to MacBride, the NIC-ICTU pursued a parallel strategy, beginning with the adoption of a Charter for Equal Opportunities and launch of a campaign for Peace, Work and Progress in 1986. In the years that followed, trade union lobbying and campaigning would, along with international pressure, help to broaden the scope of the British government’s emerging proposals on fair employment (Cradden 1993). The result of these efforts was the second Fair Employment Act (1989), which expanded the remit of the FEA (renamed the Fair Employment Commission (FEC)) and made provision for steps in the direction of positive discrimination. Key concessions won by the labour movement also included a ban on the use of intimidating flags and emblems in the workplace, which has long been a major issue in Belfast’s staple industries. In the summer of 1987, a Loyalist Workers’ Committee had orchestrated a series of wildcat strikes at Shorts aircraft factory, in protest at the removal of flags and bunting from the shop floor. The company was forced to close three of its plants in the face of what it described as “widespread intimidation and vigorous pickets” (Phoenix, 2015), while trade unionists were subject to abuse and threats for their position that the workplace should be a politically neutral environment. Recognising that legislation alone would not eradicate such deep-seated problems, Belfast Trades’ Council successfully convinced the NIC-ICTU to establish Counteract, the trade union movement’s own anti-intimidation unit. For more than a decade, Counteract was involved in ground-breaking work to tackle violent sectarianism in workplaces across the north (Goldie, 2021). The organisation was eventually succeeded by Trademark Belfast, which carries on with this anti-sectarian work to the present day.

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

93

The road to peace Paradoxically, direct rule brought greater opportunities for trade union lobbying on key questions such as human rights, industrial relations, economic development and public services. The NIC-ICTU enjoyed a positive relationship with the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) throughout this period and by 2000 had representation on a third of the north’s quangos (O’Connor, 2011). Moderate success was achieved in sparing Northern Ireland the worst excesses of Thatcherism, with unemployment and economic deprivation seen as a main driver of paramilitary activity (Gaffikin & Morrissey, 1990). At the same time, there were a number of factors driving towards political resolution of the conflict. To begin with, a general sense of war weariness had set in among the community, manifested most clearly by the emergence of the Peace People movement. These sentiments were only strengthened by the spate of atrocities and tit-fortat sectarian murders witnessed in the late ’80s and early ’90s, the victims of which included people simply making their way to and from work. Alongside this, the Provisional republican leadership had begun to shift its strategic focus to the political arena, recognising that they would be unable to achieve their primary objectives through armed struggle. From the earliest days of the Troubles the NIC-ICTU had included among its key demands the right to advocate for political change by peaceful means. But many understood that the situation demanded action over and above well-crafted statements, and gradually the trade union leadership responded to grassroots pressure for mobilisation. In 1986, after an IRA death threat to anyone working for the security forces, the UVF announced its intention to kill Catholics working in the Lisburn DHSS (Department for Health and Social Security) office. The Lisburn workers went on strike and were joined by up to 4,000 other DHSS workers across the north. Socialist campaigner Eamonn McCann described this one-day action as having done more “to create a sense of solidarity across the religious divide than all the poster campaigns and political pussy-footing of the official leadership in two decades” (McCann, 1998: 24). Whether or not this is true, there clearly was a marked upsurge in trade union protests against violence as the peace process reached a critical phase: – 9 March 1989: Mid-Ulster Trades’ Council successfully appeals for businesses to close as a mark of respect to the three victims of an IRA gun attack in Coagh, Co. Tyrone (Belfast Telegraph, 9 March 1989). – 25 October 1990: Workers at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, gather to condemn the murder of Protestant taxi driver William Aitken in the grounds of the hospital two days earlier (Belfast Telegraph, 25 October 1990). – 4 May 1991: Annual May Day rally in Belfast voices support for the ongoing peace talks, demands that “all paramilitary groups stop their campaigns totally and immediately” (Belfast Telegraph, 4 May 1991). – 21 January 1992: Workers from across Northern Ireland attend rallies in Cookstown and Magherafelt to voice their outrage at the Teebane massacre, an IRA bomb that

94

–

–

Seán Byers

killed eight Protestant builders on their way home from working at a military base (Belfast Telegraph, 20, 21 January 1992; Irish Press, 22 January 1992). 4 February 1992: NIC-ICTU organises a 3,000 strong protest at Belfast City Hall in the wake of Teebane and continued attacks on workers, including the UFF shooting of trade union activist Pearse McKenna outside his workplace at the Ormeau Bakery (Belfast Telegraph, 4 February 1992; Irish Press, 5 February 1992). 7 February 1992: Belfast Trades’ Council passes a motion calling for a trade union response to the UFF massacre of five Catholic civilians at Sean Graham bookmakers on the Ormeau Road. NIC-ICTU organises a well-attended evening vigil at the site of the massacre (Belfast Telegraph, 8 February 1992).

This trade union drive to “Stop the Killing” reached its apex with a series of mass rallies organised in the immediate aftermath of the Shankill Road bombing and the Greysteel massacre in November 1993 (Irish Examiner, 19 November 1993). With its weight firmly behind the growing consensus for peace, the NIC-ICTU’s 1994 programme, Investing in Peace, looked forward to an era of post-conflict prosperity and partnership (NIC-ICTU, 1994). Indeed, these twin themes brought together the official trade union movement and employer bodies in making increasingly vocal demands for a political settlement (Group of Seven, 1997). And when the historic Good Friday Agreement was eventually reached in 1998, the NIC-ICTU enthusiastically campaigned for a ‘Yes’ vote in the ensuing referendum.

Towards a labour history of the Troubles The full history of the role of organised labour during the Northern Ireland conflict and subsequent peace process has yet to be written. When that time comes, we are likely to gain crucial insights into what was happening within the labour movement at an institutional level and on the shop floor, how these dynamics interacted and shaped the response of trade unions at key junctures. There are plenty more stories to be told of working-class cooperation and solidarity, and of relationships forged as well as broken. There is also a job of work to be done to properly locate trade unionists in the conflict, both as protagonists and victims. And what of their involvement in Track II diplomacy efforts and conflict resolution? Anecdotes abound in trade union and community activist circles about the sensitive work of mediation and facilitation undertaken by labour figures at critical moments in the peace process. However, it may be some time before these come to light. Naturally, this fuller history would cast a more critical eye and confront uncomfortable truths, perhaps even substantiating some of the criticisms that have been made of trade union organisations. Similarly, there will have to be a reckoning with the argument that the “peace process ‘consensus’ pre-empted the need or desire to question, re-imagine or propose alternatives at a critical moment in history” (McLaughlin &

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

95

Baker, 2010: 95). We have now lived through more than two decades of neoliberal peacebuilding in which there have been negligible material advances for the workingclass areas that bore the brunt of the conflict (Byers, 2019; Coulter, 2019). These communities remain largely segregated, while sectarianism persists across society and in the institutions of the state. Moreover, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the system of power-sharing or consociation established by the Good Friday Agreement has institutionalised ethno-national division at the expense of a secular class-based politics. One question for us is: could the trade union movement have made more of its organisational strength to challenge the status quo? Whatever the answers to such questions, they should not prevent us from acknowledging that labour activists and organisations regularly made a positive stand against violence and sectarianism from the onset of the Troubles through to the 1990s. In the course of doing so, not only did the labour movement manage to avoid a major spilt along ethno-national lines – a remarkable feat in the circumstances – but functioned more positively as a force for campaigning and mobilisation around class interests. By virtue of this pivotal role in society, the trade unions were able to influence the trajectory of the conflict towards a peaceful resolution and simultaneously advance the case for reform. Looking back, one might reasonably conclude that it is these achievements which have helped create the room for class politics to breathe.

6.3 Case Study – Reflections on the Hard Gospel Project Rev Earl Storey To call a Christian peacebuilding project ‘The Hard Gospel’ may seem a contradiction in terms! – Words spoken at the launch of the Project

As widespread violence came to an end in the late 1990s, our members in the Church of Ireland (member of the Anglican Communion) were left with a deeply wounded community both at a personal and collective level. There was much pain, trauma and mistrust. The ongoing political stalemate and gamesmanship of an uncertain political process contributed little positive to any process of reconciliation. It could be said we were more divided than ever. Nevertheless, the complicated political journey resulted in the Good Friday Agreement, signed on 10th April 1998. Whilst the agreement was not welcomed by all parties, including a minority of the protestant community, it was supported in a referendum by a majority in both jurisdictions on this island. This set in motion a time of hope of a peaceful future as the framework for devolved government and power sharing came into place in Northern Ireland but there was also great frustration with the slow pace of the decommissioning of guns.

96

Rev Earl Storey

Against this background the denominational Hard Gospel peacebuilding project set out to find constructive ways of dealing with difference, in whatever way that manifested itself on the island of Ireland. The context of 30 years of violent conflict in Northern Ireland meant that peacebuilding was core to it. At the same time, profound changes were taking place in Irish society, including significant immigration and secularisation.

Origins of the project Between 1995 and 2000 the divisions that beset the wider community spilled into the life of the Church of Ireland. Tensions arose around the return leg of the annual Orange Order parade to the Church of Ireland parish church at Drumcree, on the edge of Portadown. This prompted debate and self-reflection within the Church of Ireland General Synod which meets annually for 3 days and brings together the House of Bishops, the clergy and lay representatives of the diocesan synods. If General Synod enacts or says something, it is the Church of Ireland’s way of giving its imprimatur to it – a way of saying ‘this is important for us’. This forum proved to be the catalyst for a process that would eventually see the Hard Gospel Project come into being. The 1997 General Synod adopted a motion that the Church was opposed to sectarianism. It triggered a process of self-examination on how ‘to promote at all levels of church life tolerance, dialogue, co-operation and mutual respect between the churches and in society.’ A Sectarianism Working Party was established which in turn led to the setting up in 2001 of the Sectarianism Education Project. This assisted parishes throughout the island of Ireland to increase their capacity for dealing with sectarianism and difference. Alongside its work, a professional sociologist was commissioned to research the attitudes, needs and experiences of clergy and lay people throughout the Church of Ireland on how they were dealing positively with these issues. Was it having an impact on decision-making within the Church? The research produced a 177 page Scoping Study Report entitled The Hard Gospel: Dealing Positively with Difference in the Church of Ireland. It had two key findings: – That there was a widespread belief in the Church of Ireland that sectarianism was incompatible with Christian faith. – That there was a groundswell of opinion that the denomination wanted to do something positive about it. A retired cleric, interviewed as part of the research, said: “I want to see a return to the hard gospel . . . that you love God and love your neighbour as yourself”. It was not that everyone should return with a hard attitude, but a recognition that living out these values would be difficult, especially in times of conflict. Core to the project from the very beginning would be this – what does it mean to love God and to

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

97

love your neighbour in the world we find ourselves in? (Matthew 22: 36–40). On receiving the report in 2003, the General Synod decided to widen the remit of the Sectarianism Education Project with a new name of ‘The Hard Gospel’: “to consider how to deal with difference in a range of areas including minority ethnic groups, people of other religions and issues of sexuality and gender while retaining a major emphasis on sectarianism”. The Scoping Study was discussed at every diocesan Synod in 2003 and became a denomination-wide conversation ‘without precedent in the life of the Church of Ireland’ (General Synod, 2004). This marked the seriousness with which the denomination approached the sectarianism issue by embedding the process of working with difference among its leaders.

Three year project The ‘Hard Gospel Project’ began in late 2005 and ended in early 2009. Funding came from within the Church of Ireland and a range of state sources, north and south: The International Fund for Ireland Community Bridges Programme, The Department of Foreign Affairs (ROI) and the NI Community Relations Council. A small staff team consisting of a Director and two Project Officers, one based in Belfast and the other in Dublin, were employed to take forward the process over a period of three years. The funding also allowed the appointment of an independent evaluator to conduct an ongoing evaluation throughout the life of the project and to help keep the project focused on its strategic aims and objectives. The evaluation report can be found at The Hard Gospel: What difference did it make? A key value for the Hard Gospel Project was that it would permeate into every part of life within the Church of Ireland: “If it isn’t happening in a parish, then it isn’t happening!” In other words, if peacebuilding work was not finding manifestation somewhere on the ground then it remained in the realms of the esoteric – surely pointless. The work at local level needed to be balanced with a willingness to look at ourselves in the mirror, at all levels of the denomination. The purpose was neither vanity nor self-flagellation. It was to ask questions: is there anything we are saying about ourselves and others, or that we are doing that is contributing to a problem? As someone once described it “We have had 30 years of violence, over 3,500 dead and countless numbers injured – but nobody did anything wrong!” It was said in irony. Yet it was important for the church to be willing to ask itself hard questions. Had we done anything to contribute to the division? If yes, then to act on that (Matthew 7: 3–5). An individual clergyperson or parish engaging in peacebuilding work can feel vulnerable, especially in times of heightened tension. The fact that the Church of Ireland was saying very publicly that this is what we are doing, and why we think it is important, gave an imprimatur for such work to take place on the ground. No-one could argue, and indeed no-one did, that this was an idea conceived by a few people of a

98

Rev Earl Storey

particular persuasion. In effect it made it less risky to engage in peacebuilding work at local level, as such work had the official stamp of approval by the denomination.

Some issues –

–

–

Finding the ‘silver bullet’ magic solution to sectarianism. Folklore has it that the only way to kill a werewolf was with a silver bullet. Peacebuilding is a slow patient process of many over time and there are rarely ‘silver bullet’ solutions to complex challenges. A read through the Church of Ireland Gazette archives shows that there were decades in which individuals were willing to stand for reconciliation when it was much less safe to do so. It is often the sheer ordinariness of it that is impressive. The Hard Gospel Project was but one thread in that tapestry. Did the churches in Ireland see themselves as having a primary responsibility to be chaplains to their own tribe? . . . to the needs of their own people who want safety and security within their religious group? The danger with such an approach is that ‘needs’ will not be seen as exclusively spiritual but also cultural and extend to the party political. That means Church becomes perceived, even by its own membership, as being more of a sociological phenomenon than a body of people from diverse backgrounds having one profound thing in common, Jesus Christ as Lord. If churches primarily function as chaplains to their own tribe there is an almost irresistible force for the demarcation of that church to be on ethnic, historical, social and cultural grounds.” (Storey 2002). There are times when a chaplain feels a responsibility to voice the needs hopes and fears of that particular group of people. It was optimistic to think that the project could achieve a significant impact within a life of three years but the desire was not to perpetuate a project for its own sake. The strength of the Hard Gospel process was that it began with a scoping study at General Synod and discussed at every diocesan synod in the Church of Ireland.

What was the most important thing about the Hard Gospel Project? It was that it happened! It represented a significant commitment of time, energy and resources by the Church of Ireland. It was a denomination saying we believe sectarianism was incompatible with Christian faith and that it wanted to do something about it.

Postscript When one Pope was asked what the symbol of his papacy was to be, he gave this answer: “It would be a towel.” At the Last Supper, Christ took up a towel and humbly served the disciples by washing their feet. The towel became a powerful symbol of service. For the Church it is never time to throw in the towel – it is a time to lift it.

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

99

6.4 Case Study – Peace history of the ‘Troubles’: piecing it together Rob Fairmichael Over the past fifty years, the parameters of ‘Peace history’, while similar in some ways to ‘peace journalism’, have changed to include much more the stories of citizens, civilians and civil society movements. It has included analysis of citizen campaigning, women’s movements, and other aspects of life beyond the old and outdated concept and cliches of history as the story of wars and rulers. To think of history as simply the headlines, such as the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, is a bit like the ‘kings and battles’ model of history in the broader sphere. It is now much derided particularly in light of the shift towards the ‘Local Ownership in Peace Processes’. By looking through the lens of citizens, many other questions arise: – What brought about the Good Friday Agreement? – What were the conditions which made it possible? – What led to those conditions? – How did things build up to that agreement? Clearly the Good Friday Agreement was a great achievement but it also has flaws; for example, it has copper fastened aspects of division in its consociational elements and power-sharing arrangements. The willingness of a very significant proportion of NI society, for once, to support compromise did not come from nowhere. It was hard won and struggled over decades by different elements of civil society. Obviously, some politicians were ready and willing but, for others, various bits of the jigsaw had to all fall into place. They needed to feel they would not be damned by their supporters for compromising. Yet others remained outside the tent (even if they later ventured in and occasionally out again). In simple terms, the coverage of Peace history could be divided into three parts with some overlap between them: 1. The first is simply the story of people working for peace for whom this is the primary commitment – avowedly peace groups and activists. 2. The second would be those who work for peace as part of a broader commitment in politics and civic life (think John Hume, the Nobel Peace Laureate in Northern Ireland, for example). 3. The third part is a critical analysis from a peace perspective of what others are doing in accord with peaceful ideals. Peace history is about understanding who did what to try to avoid violence and move towards peace and reconciliation, the positive contributions that were made by diverse people to make a peaceful settlement possible. On the negative side it is

100

Rob Fairmichael

also about understanding what factors exacerbated situations, leading to further violence and bloodshed, or further injustice. It should be noted that Peace history is not explicitly ‘dealing with the past’ – that is, processing the legacy of violence perpetrated on victims and engaging former combatants. However an understanding of the past is crucial to being able to move forward.

“The past is not water under the bridge. It is water filling a reservoir” Building up a picture of what has been done in building the NI peace over the lifetimes of those still alive is an enormous task, because much of the story remains hidden and has not been written or documented. It is an important task not just so ‘the truth’ of people’s struggle is documented but for the inspiration it can give. We are missing out if we do not recognise what has been done by the ‘oldies’ and not-quite-oldies. In the Northern Ireland context, not to record civil society action to address the Troubles and division is to cede history to paramilitaries and the state, different though their narratives may be. We can and should challenge the assumption of the efficacy and necessity of lethal force. Violence did not need to happen, yet it did happen. Why did it happen? What would need to have taken place for violence not to have developed? How do we ensure we never arrive in that same position again? Part of the answer lies in showing the exploration of, and advocacy for, nonviolent possibilities in the early and darkest days of the Troubles. Just one small example is the conference held in 1981 by the Corrymeela Community and the Glencree Centre to explore models of political cooperation across borders (Rea, 1982). There are many different sectors of civil society including women’s groups, Community groups, trade unions, churches, peace and reconciliation groups, and their focus on Community relations and building peace. Each of these sectors has a tale to tell in relation to the work done to address the Troubles and how they explored ways forward both for their sector and society in general. The trade unions, for example, had many different initiatives and the fact that their story has not been told is not their fault because of their difficulty in obtaining funds. Of course, the fact that churches are systemically part of a sectarian society and sometimes bastions of division has also to be acknowledged; but so too should the sometimes personally costly work by some church women and men who pushed out the boat and sought to sail forward. The size, durability and modus operandi of different civil society groups and organisations has varied enormously. In devising a Peace Trail through the streets of Belfast, Emily Stanton has shown the varied activities of civil society actors, not just those who had an explicit peace label. During the Troubles, some groups in the North were extinct before they got their constitution together. The Irish Pacifist Movement ran for over thirty years, the Fellowship of Reconciliation almost fifty. The Peace

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

101

People began big and became smaller. Corrymeela continues to work as an organisation devoted to reconciliation and a meeting place after five and a half decades. While numerous groups have had paid staff, most have depended, at least in part, on volunteers and many have been solely dependent on the latter. However, the withdrawal of funding from some Northern groups following the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 led or contributed to their demise. A recent INNATE initiative put a spotlight on ‘Civil society and the Troubles’ to record the initiatives which peace groups and civil society in all its guises undertook to deal with Troubles issues. In a Zoom seminar,1 INNATE asked a number of civil society peace groups and activists to tell the story of their personal experiences of involvement and contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process. But this is simply scratching the surface of something which requires more detailed study and a process of people sharing on prominent experiences or events rather than detailed organisational history. We can of course journey onwards without attention to the past, and every new situation and time is unique. But being able to identify the basis of success, or failure, and identify trends and ‘which way the wind is blowing’ is important for strategising and building our movements today. We need all the imagination and creativity we can gather if we are to build a more peaceful world. One of the features of socio-political movements is the phenomenon of peaks and troughs; sometimes such movements are sailing along with strong winds of public opinion, and engagement, behind them while at other times the going can be tough. The nuclear disarmament movement (CND), for example, fits this pattern, with at least a couple of peaks since it began at the end of the 1950s. However, Richard Harrison (1986) gives explicit advice “don’t worry if one group dies, another will come along soon”. This entails that we should keep going when the going is tough, and when the cause becomes more popular again then we will be more prepared. There are no easy answers and discernment is required as to where we should put our efforts. Of course, peace movement history has not always been plain sailing or easy going. In looking back, we have to be honest with ourselves and critique our own work with humility and empathy. This means acknowledging failures as well as successes – we probably tend to do neither. But part of it is also showing the amount of work and effort which went into various projects, the very considerable efforts made even when things did not go smoothly, and the courage it took to stick one’s neck out. Photos of people and events of various peace groups can be found on the platform Flickr.2

 www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNPa_PN5Ifc.  https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/12087496276/in/album-72157614893100575/.

102

Rob Fairmichael

Appendix to case study 6.3 The Hard Gospel Project had four strategic aims with each one having an associated set of objectives: 1. To enable the Church, at all levels, to model the Relationships and values with regard to overcoming sectarianism, Community conflict, and dealing with difference that it will promote in wider society. Objectives: – Examine and change central structures and representative bodies to achieve more balanced participation within the Church of Ireland. – Enhance existing and, where needed, provide new structures of internal dialogue to promote openness and understanding of difference in the Church of Ireland. – Identify and change areas where sectarianism and destructive patterns of relating to difference affect the witness and ministry of the Church of Ireland. This will involve dialogue with, among others, representatives of: Loyal Orders, ethnic minorities, women’s groups, disability organisations and gender and sexuality groups. 2.

To develop and promote policies, practices and statements of the Church of Ireland that will encourage honest and constructive Relationships in dealing with sectarianism and issues of difference in the church and wider society.

Objectives: – Proof all policies, practices and statements of the Church of Ireland in terms of sectarianism and dealing positively with difference, including those where the current attitude of the church reflects historical identification with one political and cultural Community. – Identify areas of policy and practice where new guidelines on honest and constructive Relationships in dealing with difference are needed and develop them. – Widen the range of churches, faith communities and other interest groups with which the Church of Ireland has regular and established Relationships. – Raise the profile and increase understanding of the Church of Ireland‘s approach to sectarianism and dealing positively with difference through a focused and sustained programme of publicity and information. 3.

To enhance the capability of the Church of Ireland at all levels to take initiatives to build peace and to transform communities.

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

103

Objectives: – Provide training, support and resourcing for central leadership. – Provide training, support and resourcing for diocesan/parish leadership, both clerical and lay. – Modify initial and continuing clerical and lay training processes to include significant emphasis on learning to overcome sectarianism to deal positively with difference and to encourage/enable others to do the same. – Develop the Youth training programme to include a significant emphasis on learning to move beyond sectarianism and to deal positively with difference – Collate information about best practice in moving beyond sectarianism and dealing positively with difference and actively promote it within the church and beyond. 4. To implement initiatives, projects or programmes in collaboration with other Churches, agencies and groups in a manner that will create more open and inclusive local communities. Objectives: – Develop projects in partnership with key agencies that address profound issues of social cohesion within our Community – Work with as wide a range of key stakeholders as practical in a number of local areas to develop projects and programmes which address identified need, and will be owned by all involved – Develop a strong international dimension to the Hard Gospel Project. This will involve building Relationships with key agencies in other spheres of conflict, with the purpose of meaningful exchange of learning – Seek appropriate short to medium-term sponsorship and funding for the initiatives, with the aim of encouraging them to become self-sustaining in the long term.

References Belfast Trades Council, Distress fund. 4 April 1970. Boyd, A. (1984). Have the trade unions failed the north? Cork: Mercier Press. Byers, S. (2019), The politics of neo-liberalisation and resistance in post-crash Northern Ireland. Global Discourse, Vol. 9, No. 3 pp. 483–501. Byers, S. and Michael P. (2016). Archives of Working-Class Life: The Labour Movement, WorkingClass Cultures and Conflict in Northern Ireland Since 1945. Queen’s University Belfast/DFA. Campbell K., Wilson D. & BraithwaiteJ. (2017). Ending Residual Paramilitary Domination in Northern Ireland? Restorative economic and social inclusion strategies. Working paper.

104

Rob Fairmichael

Church of Ireland Gazette archive. https://www.ireland.anglican.org/news/10341/the-church-ofireland-gazette Collins, M. (2019). 1969 & the Birth of the Troubles. Rebel (online). Retrieved from: http://www.re belnews.ie/2019/08/14/1969-and-the-birth-of-the-Troubles/ (accessed 20 December 2021). Coulter, C. (2019). Northern Ireland’s elusive peace dividend: Neoliberalism, austerity and the politics of class. Capital & Class, 43 (1) 123–138. Corrymeela Community, Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University and the University of Ulster (2020). Moving from Violence to Peace: An international working group on individuals and communities in Transition. www.corrymeela.org Cradden, T. (1993). Trade Unionism, Social Justice and Religious Discrimination in Northern Ireland. ILR Review, 46 (3) 480–498. Cradden, T. (1994). The trade union movement in Northern Ireland. in Donal Nevin (ed.), Trade Union Century. Mercier Press. Davey, R. (1985). Take away this Hate. The Corrymeela Press. Dixon, P. (2001). Northern Ireland: The Politics of War and Peace. Palgrave Macmillan. Funding Peace: A report on the funding of Peace and Reconciliation work in Northern Ireland and Ireland 2007–2017. Gaffikin, F. & Morrissey M. (1990). Northern Ireland: The Thatcher Years. Pluto. Goldie, R. (2021). A Dangerous Pursuit: The Anti-Sectarian Work of Counteract. Peter Lang. Group of Seven (the CBI, the Hotel Federation, the Institute of Directors, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce, the Northern Ireland Growth Challenge, the Northern Ireland Economic Council, and the NIC-ICTU), ‘Our Future’ statement. 30 May 1997. Harrison, R. S. (1986). Irish Anti-War Movements 1824–1974. Irish Peace Publications. IICM (1993). Sectarianism: A Discussion Document. Irish Inter-Church Meeting. INNATE has an online, downloadable, poster worded “The past is not water under the bridge – It is water filling a reservoir”. See under ’Dealing with the past’ at https://innatenonviolence.org/ wp/posters/. Irish Congress of Trade unions (ICTU) (1972). Fourteenth Annual Report. ICTU. Irish Congress of Trade unions (1973). Fifteenth Annual Report. ICTU. Kelly, L. (2009). ‘One remarkable fact’: Why most of Belfast remained at peace’. History Ireland, 17 (4) 40–42. Liechty, J. (1995). The Nature of Sectarianism Today, in Sectarianism: Papers of the 1994 Corrymeela Ecumenical Conference, Dominican Publications. Liechty, J. & Clegg C. (2001). Moving Beyond Sectarianism: Religion, Conflict and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Colomba Press. Loughlin, C. J.V. (2018). Representing Labour: Notes Towards a Political and Cultural Economy of Irish Working-Class Experience. in Pierse M. (ed.), A History of Irish Working-Class Writing. Cambridge University Press. McAleese, M. (2020). Here’s the Story: A Memoir, Sandycove. McCann, E. (1998). War and Peace in Northern Ireland. Dublin. McInerney, M. (1970). Trade Unions bid for Peace in the North. The Irish Times. McLaughlin, G. & Baker S. (2010). The Propaganda of Peace: The Role of Media and Culture in the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Intellect. Morrow D. (2016). The Far Side of Revenge: Reflections on the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Paper delivered at Glucksman Ireland House. New York University. Morrow D. (2019). Sectarianism in Northern Ireland: A Review. Ulster University. Morrow, D., McAllister, Campbell & Wilson, (2013). Mediated Dialogues and Systemic Change in Policing in Northern Ireland https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280154876_Mediat ing_Critical_Dialogue

6 Reducing Sectarianism and Hate at the grassroots

105

Morrow D. Byrne J. (2020). Countering Paramilitary and Organised Criminal Influence on Youth: A Review. NIC-ICTU (1994). Investing in Peace. Belfast. O’Connor, E. (2011). A Labour History of Ireland, 1824–2000. UCD Press. O’Connor, E. & McCabe C. (2010). Ireland. in Joan A., Campbell A. & McIlroy J (eds.), Histories of Labour: National and International Perspectives. Pontypool: Merlin Press. Phoenix, É. (2015). NI 1987 State papers: “Wildcat” strikes over flags at Shorts revealed. BBC News (online), 15 August 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland33992639 (accessed 4 January 2022). Potter M. & Lynagh, N. (2003). Joined Up: Developing Good Relations in the School Community, Corrymeela and Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education. The project also has digital case studies and DVD material for schools and young people. Rea, D. (1982). Models of Political Cooperation. Gill & Macmillan. Report of the Standing Committee to Church of Ireland General Synod (2004) https://synodarchive.ireland.anglican.org/2004/reports/pdf/21scappP.pdf Rolston, B. (1980). The limits of trade unionism. in O’Dowd L., Rolston B. & Tomlinson M. (eds.), Northern Ireland: Between civil rights and civil war. CSE Books. Scarman Tribunal (1972). Violence and Disturbances in Northern Ireland in 1969: Report of Tribunal of Inquiry. Stationery Office. Scoping Study Report to the Sectarianism Education Project (2003). The Hard Gospel: Dealing Positively with Difference in the Church of Ireland. https://www.ireland.anglican.org/news/ 831/the-hard-gospel-dealing-positively Sectarianism Working Group Report (1998). Appendix E of Standing Committee Report to the General Synod of the Church of Ireland. Stanton E. Peace Trail leaflet: https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/43899692560/in/ album-72157676326740807/ Storey, E. (2002). Traditional roots: An appropriate relationship between the Church of Ireland and the Orange Order. Columba Press. Storey, E. (2020). Life Beyond Boundaries: A Reflection on the Hard Gospel Project. Search Theological Journal. The Hard Gospel: What difference did it make? https://www.ireland.anglican.org/archive/hardgo spel/index.php?do=news&sid=&rid=50 Trademark Belfast, ‘Anti-sectarianism’ (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://trademarkbelfast.com/antisectarianism/ (accessed 3 January 2022). Whyte, J. (1990). Interpreting Northern Ireland. Oxford University Press.

7 Inter-communal Dialogue Abstract: Community think tanks and the ‘The Island’ Pamphlets (Michael Hall) – Over 130 titles have been published since 1993 in a series of ‘Island Pamphlets’ providing grassroots perspectives. The community think tank process brings together a small group of cross-community workers to reflect on specific political, historical, cultural and peace issues pertinent to the Northern Irish peace process. A summary of the recorded discussions is then prepared for publication as a pamphlet. At all stages, control of the content remains in the hands of the participants with Michael Hall acting as editor and not as censor. Strengthening Civil Society through Community Dialogue (Jim O’Neill) – To open up the peace process for community-based dialogue, a two-sided leaflet is carefully prepared to summarise a topic in a neutral way so that a cross-community group can talk together and understand the complexity of that issue. It is ‘not just any old talk’ but rather talk that involves listening to others, questioning themselves and getting a new angle on it. The consequences of societal failure to handle an issue are also examined. Keywords: community think tanks, grassroots dialogue, recorded discussions, pamphlet, two-sided leaflet, capacity building, empowerment

Introduction Geoffrey Corry In what way does grassroots dialogue differ from Track II dialogue? Because Track III takes place in the community, it tends not to be residential nor outside the immediate locality. It is more accessible to local people and community workers. It is more cost-effective using local centres connected to community based civil society organisations. Nevertheless, the core purpose of the dialogue process may not be very much different to the well regarded definition by William Isaacs (1997): “Dialogue is the flow of meaning and understanding between people gathered and thinking together in an interactive relationship”. Of course, dialogue is as old as the hills and goes back to Greek Socratic times and the indigenous circles among tribes that brought the local elders together to discuss family and tribal issues. What better thing to do than adopt the words of the Native American Indian community: “You talk and talk until the talk begins”. This beautiful piece of wisdom shows that the conversation needs to go around the circle several times until the real talk begins and the substantial issues and values emerge in a consensual way. The order by which participants speak is usually selfregulatory by passing around a stone or local symbol. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-007

108

Michael Hall

These two case studies show different forms of dialogue that grew out of the need by community workers to meet across the binary identity boundary and to engage face-to-face under a set of dialogue ground rules. The Community Think Tank meets around a broad theme that the facilitator has discerned would be a valuable topic for deeper exploration and shared reflection at that particular time in the peace process. But the process does not step there. Michael Hall spends hours transcribing the recorded conversations, picking out pertinent things that participants have said and then compiles them into a booklet for distribution back into those local communities. The thinking and reflective process goes onto another level. Participants tend to be community workers and local leaders from both the nationalist/ republican community and the unionist/loyalist community who are having to face everyday concerns on the ground and are wanting to find a way forward. On the other hand, Community Dialogue requires more preparation in advance by the group of facilitators who prepare a leaflet to start a discussion among grassroots ‘ordinary people’. The goal of their discussion is not about negotiating solutions to issues in the peace process but to respond to the question: what questions arise for you?

7.1 Case Study – Community think tanks and ‘The Island’ pamphlets Michael Hall

Creating a vehicle for dialogue – The story of how it came about When the Troubles began in 1968, I was struck by the fact that the diversity of views I was hearing in communities did not fall neatly into the stereotypes presented by the media. The media were preoccupied with the pronouncements of politicians, clergymen and other ‘leaders’ of society but the voices of ordinary people rarely received an airing. Even when ‘phone-in’ programmes began to make their appearance on radio and TV, the format seemed to encourage confrontational exchanges rather than constructive debate. However, no useful mechanisms existed through which these unheard voices and rich diversity of grassroots opinion could be purposefully articulated to assist movement towards a more pluralist future. Great periods of radical social change have often been preceded by intense and quite radical grassroots debate taking different forms. During the French Revolution (1789) there was radical pamphleteering; while in Spain during the 1930s energetic discussions took place in working-class community centres (Casas del Pueblo); and in 1968 café debates flowered during Czechoslovakia’s ‘Prague Spring’. I wondered how the printed word might be utilised as a means of engendering debate in Northern Ireland.

7 Inter-communal Dialogue

109

In the early 1970s in Belfast and Derry, radical discussion papers and small pamphlets had sporadically surfaced but had been limited in their impact. A few of us founded the Belfast Libertarian Group in 1973 and produced the first in what was intended to be a series of documents analysing the events unfolding around us. In a pamphlet Ireland, Dead or Alive? we not only castigated Unionism and its discriminatory practices but also the Provisional IRA and its rapidly escalating bombing campaign. To my surprise, reaction was immediate and antagonistic. We learned on the spot how not to engender a debate. Both loyalist and republican groups viewed any attempt at dialogue with suspicion. Nevertheless, at a grassroots level many people were attempting to initiate genuine dialogue – even if only within their own areas. Over the coming years community groups on both sides of the so-called ‘religious divide’ would endeavour to provide citizens with opportunities to talk their way through to a new future. Indeed, I believe that the real untold story of the ‘Troubles’ – aside from the largely unheard suffering of the victims – concerns the constant efforts made by ordinary people to initiate dialogue, efforts repeatedly thwarted not only by forces within their own communities but by a political establishment which resented any intrusion upon its well-entrenched interests. In 1986, I was handed a copy of The History of the 36th (Ulster) Division by Cyril Falls and asked if I would write an abridged booklet version, primarily for use by the young people involved in a project about the Battle of the Somme (July – November 1916). This turned out to be one of my first publications, Sacrifice on the Somme. It recounted the story of the Irish Divisions in the first World War and the sacrifice made by young Irish men of all religious persuasions who died in the trenches in their thousands. The debate it engendered suggested that an exploration of other aspects of Ulster’s shared heritage might be an ideal way to kick-start the pamphlet series I was now determined to produce. The idea of writing pamphlets came alive again in October 1992 following a landmark ‘cross-community think tank’ event when it was felt important to circulate the proceedings widely at grassroots level. Because many of the exchanges during the conference had been emotive and energy-charged, it was also realised that next time around a necessary preliminary would be to establish separate, but complementary, Think Tanks in each side of the community before a joint Think Tank could be convened. By writing up the thinking of each of these separate encounters in a pamphlet, this would permit the debate to reach a much wider audience and a richer discussion at the subsequent joint think tank. The conference report was the first title in what would become my ‘Island Pamphlets’ series – it was published in 1993 as Island Pamphlet No. 1, Life on the Interface. It received an enthusiastic reception across the community network and had to be reprinted. It was quickly followed by seven ‘shared history’ titles already in preparation, and the first actual ‘Think Tank’ pamphlet was published as Pamphlet No. 9, Ulster’s Protestant Working Class (1994). Even at this early stage, interest in

110

Michael Hall

Figure 7.1: Some of the 130 Island Pamphlets edited by Michael Hall. Photo: Geoffrey Corry.

the pamphlets at a grassroots level far exceeded my expectations and – much to my satisfaction – discussion on the topics to be covered by the series originated not with me but with individuals and groups within the community. In effect, the pamphlet series had quickly become an important vehicle for debate and dialogue. The early pamphlet titles were written and published at my own expense with the support of my printer who only charged the cost of printing. I failed to obtain funding or sponsorship because I was an individual publisher. The problem was solved by setting up the Farset Community Think Tanks Project which allowed public funding to come from the European Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. The pamphlets were recognised as a unique vehicle for cross-community dialogue. This enabled me to devote myself full-time to the task of realising the potential of the pamphlet series. Next came the problem of distribution. Given that the titles had an important ‘local interest’ content, I thought there would be no difficulty in getting them accepted for sale in Belfast bookshops. It was not to be. The manager of a city centre bookshop, for example, replied to my request as follows: “We live in a commercial world and money tied up in very slow saleable stock can be extremely expensive.” Nevertheless, I managed to establish an extensive distribution network of over 120 community organisations. The EU funding allowed for 2,000 copies of each title to be widely disseminated, free of charge. To date, 201,800 copies have been distributed around interface communities.

7 Inter-communal Dialogue

111

The Think Tank process There are three complementary components to the think tank process: (1) smallgroup dialogue, (2) the pamphlet containing the verbatim points of view and (3) the rethinking process by people reading what has been said. Let me describe each component in more detail.

The small-group discussions and dialogue A small group of people who reflect different opinions on a particular issue are brought together at community level to discuss a particular topic or issue. These are not public debates or seminars but are informal explorations undertaken by individuals who have an interest in or an involvement with pertinent community issues. They hope what they are saying has a relevance beyond their small number, yet they should not claim to be speaking for anyone other than themselves. They undertake a series of recorded discussions in meetings that take place every two to three weeks as part of an ongoing process. A group should be no more than 10–12 people because if there are more, it tends to inhibit full participation. Numbers can be higher where participants feel comfortable with that. Sometimes the ‘community think tanks’ turn out to be preparation for joint meetings with another group or an important community conference. A nominal chairperson is required but experience has shown their intervention is best when it is not obtrusive. The role can be rotated. Some very lively and fascinating debates have taken place with only minimum intervention from the chair. A venue free from distractions and acceptable to all is an important requirement. It need not be a ‘neutral’ place even if the participants do not come from the same community. All mobile phones are switched off. All agree that a confidential recording can be made of the discussions for the purpose of editing them down into the pamphlet. At all stages, control of the process remains in the hands of the participants. This has allowed for the publication of some very challenging material, reflecting the rich diversity of opinion which exists in Northern Ireland – even within the same community. Having an agreed theme or chosen topic in advance of the first meeting is best. Otherwise, the first meeting draws up a list of issues/themes which the group wants to address. These can include pertinent issues such as cross-community work, marching and parades, cross-border relationships, or the future of the ‘peace process’. Some Think Tanks were area-based, reflecting the experiences of people living on either side of different conflict interfaces. Some focused on specific sectors within the community – young people, senior citizens, victims, community activists, ex-prisoners, people with disabilities, women’s groups.

112

Michael Hall

I believe that fundamental grassroots issues are more effectively and creatively addressed in small-group settings than in large public forums. Many who attend public debates often come away feeling that little real dialogue has taken place and that participants – both from the platform and the floor – have directed their comments ‘to the gallery’, or to their own constituency. Community activist Jackie Hewitt remarked: I have attended many conferences where speaker after speaker got up and said just what I, and everybody else, expected them to say, or what we all already knew. And there was a sense of disappointment that something more productive hadn’t been gained from bringing together such a large group of people. To be honest, I find far more innovative thoughts and challenging ideas being expressed in the Think Tank pamphlets – and yet there are perhaps only a dozen people involved in each.

Maybe when people sit in a small group, they find it easier to voice different opinions and explore new ideas. People feel more confident that their personal input will be listened to and valued and, if the group gels, an honesty and openness will increasingly enter into the discussions. If genuine trust is established between participants, a confidence often develops which allows them to tackle controversial subjects in a creative way. Furthermore, unlike in public meetings, the small-group setting encourages people to bring some of their life experiences into the discussion, which allows for a deeper understanding. As each participant is given space to recount their life experiences, the broad range of those experiences is invariably reflected in the rich diversity of opinions held by the group – often to the surprise of others from the same community. One member of the Shankill Think Tank commented: When I attended the first meeting, I remember expressing a very hardline Unionist viewpoint – because that was what I was expecting from everyone else. But as I listened to the different views which were voiced, not only was I amazed – I had never realised that such diversity existed in my own community – but I began to accept that this diversity – whether in my own community or right across this whole society – wasn’t the threatening thing I had always believed it to be.

Preparing the pamphlet for publication When the pamphlet series was re-launched as the Farset Community Think Tanks Project, core funding followed and this allowed the Island Pamphlets to focus primarily on edited accounts of small-group discussions. Looking back on my first venture into pamphleteering, my 1973 document was naive, rhetoric-filled and imbued with the self-certainties of youth. I could never have imagined that I would eventually be sitting down with Loyalists, Republicans, Orangemen – and many others with whom I have fundamental disagreements –

7 Inter-communal Dialogue

113

and assisting them to articulate and clarify their views for the benefit of the wider community. I strive to allow the participants to speak for themselves and have their voices heard in print. I refrain from passing judgement on what is said. I had come to realise that before this society can truly move forward, we must all begin to listen to one another properly – and even hear ourselves properly – even if what is being said is unpalatable. Only when everyone has an equal input will we begin to find ways of reaching a lasting accommodation which will permit us to move into a genuinely pluralist future. This approach undoubtedly encouraged the openness and honesty which became the most remarked-upon attribute of the Think Tank pamphlets. For a start, it was accepted that my role was to edit the discussions, not to censor them. They allowed people to express themselves openly, and in their own verbatim and anonymous words, and the Think Tank/pamphlet process was readily acknowledged across all communities in Northern Ireland. For example, towards the end of 2001, I worked on two pamphlets simultaneously: – No. 39, The Forgotten Victims. This involved a victims’ group whose loved ones had been murdered by Republicans, and – No. 40, The Unequal Victims. This involved the relatives of the IRA unit shot dead in the SAS ambush at Loughgall. Each group knew I was working with the other, yet this did not pose a problem to either of them. As one participant said: The integrity of your project is so well established that we are totally confident that our pamphlet will reflect our views accurately – just as we know that their pamphlet will do the same for them. We also know that any of your own comments inserted into the document are only there to help it flow, not to pass judgement on what we say.

Although each series of discussions resulted in a pamphlet which would reach a wide readership, it was primarily a process involving a small group of individuals. For some of the participants, it was perhaps the first time they had been encouraged to articulate their hopes and fears or describe their personal experiences. It was inevitable that over the period of the meetings views might mellow – or harden – and such a development was accommodated. When it came to discussing the drafts, participants were permitted to clarify what they had said so that their views were accurately represented. Another encouragement to openness was that no quotes were attributed (apart from a small number of cross-border discussions where names were inserted mainly to avoid geographical confusion), and the final document was only published when there was consensus agreement on its content. As a final safeguard, once the pamphlet was published all recordings were erased and all written drafts destroyed, so that only that which had been collectively agreed remained in the public domain. I would also be conscious of ‘invisible’

114

Michael Hall

participants. For example, during one series of discussions a major funding body was frequently referred to, often in a negative manner. I pointed out to the discussants that this organisation had become, unknowingly, a ‘party’ to the discussions, and I suggested that they be given an opportunity to respond. This was readily agreed and the resultant pamphlet (No. 32, A Question of Community Relations) contained two sections: the first in which the community activists voiced their frustrations, and a second where representatives of the funding body engaged them in debate. Both sides agreed that it had been an extremely useful exercise.

The rethinking process When the pamphlet is distributed free to people in both communities, they are then able to read what others are talking and thinking about on a similar topic. As one participant told me: When you first read the draft you get a bit of a shock. You go: did I really say that! Somehow seeing it down in black and white makes you realise how embittered you must seem to others. Sometimes we all say things automatically without really thinking about their impact. The pamphlets help you to move forward. In the first few pages you read all these hardline statements which you naturally agree with, then you begin to see other opinions being expressed which initially you might have rejected, but, in the context in which they are said, make you pause and think. And then at the end of the document you can see how you [as editor] have sort of summarised the different views and highlighted possible ways of moving forward, and you say to yourself: Yes, I think I could live with that. People trust the project not to have a hidden agenda, or to be self-seeking. They appreciate that you [as facilitator] are always careful to ensure that people are happy with the final document.

Jim McCorry, a tireless promoter of the pamphlets, summed up their essence: I feel that the exercise has two important components: content and process. In terms of content, the pamphlets allow many individuals and groups to gain access to the opinions and experiences of different communities – including the ‘other’ community – often for the very first time. But people’s preparedness to read the pamphlets is enhanced as much by the other component – the process. People have accepted that the pamphlet series isn’t emanating from only one community and isn’t biased towards one community or the other. They know that you are going round meeting people from different backgrounds and political positions and letting them freely articulate their thoughts and needs. So they are always prepared to give your material a chance, even when it sets out to reflect views towards which they would normally feel antagonistic. And, of course, a lot relies on the integrity and trust you have personally built up over the years, right across all communities.

Participants see it as a process in which their own development is just as important as the printed product. This contributes to people reflecting on the context of the issues and re-thinking what they are all about. One funder noted:

7 Inter-communal Dialogue

115

Some of the opinions expressed in your latest pamphlet I have heard voiced on television, but usually in the form of brief one-liners – which means that they invariably come across as hardline, reactionary or bigoted. However, when I would come upon identical comments in the pamphlet, they were always part of a larger paragraph which provided a context through which you gained some insight into why the speaker had arrived at such an opinion.

Community groups soon began to see the pamphlets as a means by which people at the grassroots could articulate their hopes and fears and draw lessons from their experiences. Community activist May Blood made a telling comment to me which confirmed that the parameters of debate could be shifted: When you brought out the second Shankill Think Tank pamphlet [in which the participants had looked to the future], I can tell you there were a few raised eyebrows about some of the things said in it . . . it seemed a bit radical for the Shankill area. And yet, a couple of months later I was at a meeting and was surprised that people were openly discussing issues which up until then had seemed taboo. When I pointed this out, the response was: ‘Well, if the Shankill Think Tank can tackle these subjects, so can we’.

One of the participants in a community Think Tank was a woman whose father had been murdered by Republicans. It had left her devastated. The trauma she had experienced had severely blighted her teenage years. She also felt that her personal story wasn’t accorded any value. One day after the 1994 IRA ceasefire, a TV reporter descended on her community group among others and asked her: ‘What are your hopes for the future?’ She replied: ‘Look, this ceasefire is only a day old. I have a lot of pain to come to terms with yet.’ Upon which the interviewer pointedly turned away from her and addressed his question to the others in the room. Like so many in the media, he had no real interest in her historic hurt and was solely concerned with the immediate moment in hand. However, during the Think Tank discussions, because of the bitterness she felt towards the IRA, she was frequently at odds with some of the more accommodating views expressed by other participants. When I presented the draft of the proposed pamphlet, I expected her to object strongly to my inclusion of many of these views. But because her views were included as well, on an equal footing, she accepted that all views had a right to be heard – and, more importantly, on both sides of the community. On another occasion she described the Think Tank experience as ‘therapeutic’. Many participants felt that a definite process was at work, whether while participating in the Think Tank discussions or on reading the draft or the pamphlet itself. Here is an example of a community response. I was walking along the [Protestant] Shankill Road when I was stopped by community activist Jackie Redpath, who said, ‘We need more copies of the recent pamphlet.’ Thinking that he was referring to the last Shankill Think Tank pamphlet I told him that I had few copies left. ‘No,’ he said, ‘not the Shankill one – the Falls one. [The Falls Road being the mainly Catholic area.] There’s been an amazing amount of interest in it from people who

116

Michael Hall

come into our offices.’ Two weeks later, while visiting a community group across the interface in Turf Lodge, I received a similar request for ‘more pamphlets’. This time I was more cautious in my reply, ‘Which one?’ ‘The Shankill one; everyone wants to know what’s being said over there.’ Such a cross-community resonance has been a recurrent theme. One pamphlet (No. 31, Left in Limbo) which described the experiences of the children of Republican prisoners, was much in demand from Loyalists – because they could identify with its content; as one Loyalist said to me: ‘Our kids must have gone through the same things.’ Another positive aspect of pamphlet 31 was that although a couple of the young people had been very critical of the IRA – on the basis that their fathers had cared more for the ‘armed struggle’ than for their own families – a leading republican commented, ‘It’s a bit hard [on us] in parts, but if that’s what we put our young people through then we must allow them to express their feelings openly.’ Initially the pamphlets were seen as a means of learning about and understanding not only one’s own community but the ‘other’ community. There came a stage, however, when community activists began to see the pamphlets as a vehicle for reaching out across the ‘divide’. For example, Nationalist community activists in Ardoyne, faced with the total breakdown in community relations which resulted from the Holy Cross primary school blockade of 2001, requested that a Think Tank be assembled for the purpose of exploring attitudes to cross-community contact within the local Catholic community, and then have the resulting pamphlet distributed widely across the sectarian interface. This was done (Pamphlet No.56, Beginning a debate). The response from the Protestant side was very positive, for they were heartened to learn that many people in the Catholic community still desired an accommodation, just as many of them did. The pamphlets have also reached an audience outside Northern Ireland, one not confined to journalists and researchers. Over many years, I have worked alongside community activist Joe Camplisson, whose expertise in community development and conflict resolution in Northern Ireland was eventually put to productive use in the former Soviet Republic of Moldova. That initiative in turn caught the attention of young Israelis and Palestinians seeking assistance with their own conflict. Two pamphlets were specifically devoted to their needs (No. 57, Reflections on Violence; and No. 58, Making road maps for peace). Responding positively to this use of small group discussion – with its emphasis on the ‘personal’ rather than dry academic analysis – they arranged for 600 copies to be widely distributed across their own conflict interface.

7 Inter-communal Dialogue

117

7.2 Case Study 2 – Strengthening Civic Society through Community Dialogue Jim O’Neill After many years of politico-sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland, a window of opportunity came with the paramilitary cease-fires in 1994 and this time of hope and reduced tension was strengthened by the second IRA ceasefire in the summer of 1997. Yet the multi-party talks that led up to the Belfast Agreement and the political negotiations about our future were being negotiated behind closed doors. There was a feeling among Belfast groups that we were being locked out of the process. In response to this predicament, a meeting of about fifteen community workers and activists from different communities crossing the identity divide was held to consider how best to respond. Agreement was reached that the future was too important to leave solely in the hands of politicians. To be sure, to secure lasting peace, the people must own the process and not be excluded. The founding group “believed that if groups understand each other more deeply, they would be better able to make informed decisions about starting, continuing or ending conflict” (Lennon, 2004: p. 125). If groups were invited to step into the world of the other group, feel their emotion, see how they came to hold their positions and how their values were chosen, then they would be less likely to engage in violence. The founding group agreed the core principle of remaining neutral and not take any position on party-political issues: “We believe that if we want a better future, we need to take the time to question ourselves, listen to each other and seek to understand each other more deeply.” Members of the group had sufficient experience of dialogue for them to be confident that it is the most effective tool for challenging societal conflict and engaging civic society. They wanted to encourage the growth of meaningful sustainable relationships out of conflict and enable the resolution of divisive issues. Out of all of these considerations, Community Dialogue was formed in October 1997 as a cross-community group to: – Broaden ownership of the process of resolving our differences and agreeing our future. – Encourage the people’s engagement in deliberative, consensus building dialogue on the critical issues affecting our future. – Build a ladder of communication between civic society and the political negotiations, passing recommendations on to those negotiations.

Phase 1: 1999–2009 Embedding the peace Following referenda north and south approving the Belfast Agreement, Community Dialogue focused on managing the post conflict transition with those constituencies

118

Jim O’Neill

struggling to come to terms with the new dispensation-loyalists, republicans, victims/survivors and ex-combatants. Over 500 local dialogue events were held in the period between 1998 and 2004. The Executive group were successful in getting funds from the EU Peace III programme to deliver a series of leaflets on a range of topics under the title ‘Steps into Dialogue’ to enable dialogue to happen on the ground. The questions discussed were highly emotive and contested by each side. – January 1999 – Decommissioning: What do you think? – February 1999 – What Price Peace? – August 1999 – What if the Review [of the Belfast Agreement] fails? Plan B. – August 2010 – Social Apartheid: Is this what we really want? – November 2010 – From Past to Future – The Saville Inquiry and Beyond – July 2011 – The Peace Process is over (?) Each of the leaflets on these titles and others were carefully prepared to enable groups to talk – “Not just any old talk: rather talk that involves questioning ourselves, listening to others and trying genuinely to see new angles on things.” The two-sided leaflet usually started off with a factual summary. Then the arguments ‘for and against’ by the political parties were listed on the chosen issue, followed by specific questions for each side (unionists and nationalists) to answer. Most important, a section in each leaflet was devoted to examining the consequences if society failed to handle the topic and could not come up with compromise solutions to the issues. By following the structured questions set out in each leaflet and within the confidentiality ground rules for facilitated dialogue, group participants (who attended as an individual and not representing their group) developed a deeper understanding of what really mattered both to themselves and to other groups. It also helped them to be more critical of what their own politicians said. This emerged from the stories and experiences of participants, out of which grew – in an empathic way – an understanding of the complexity of the issues (Lennon 2004: p. 126). The goal of the discussion was not about negotiating solutions but to respond to the question: what questions arose for you?

Phase 2: 2010–2014 Embracing diversity As society normalised a decade on from GFA, it became more diverse. Racism and other forms of intolerance were becoming more prominent while marginalised communities, excluded from the benefits of peace, remained hotbeds of sectarian tension and paramilitary criminality. We responded by broadening engagement to include ethnic and other minorities, challenging all forms of intolerance. We increased our emphasis on empowering local communities by providing training programmes in capacity building.

7 Inter-communal Dialogue

119

Phase 3: 2015 to the present. Increasing Participation in future building The big promises of GFA remained unfulfilled or fully implemented. Institutionalised sectarian government was failing to understand and respond to the changing societal needs in Northern Ireland. The political environment was also changing with the collapse of power-sharing at Stormont in January 2017 and everyone having to come to terms with the potential uncertain consequences of the 2016 Brexit referendum. We were having to live with renewed identity division, the hardening of attitudes, increasing intolerance, exclusion and uncertainty that flowed from these two developments. The community relations sector expressed concern that much of the goodwill and inter-communal trust was evaporating. However, the positive was that political violence had nearly come to an end and “the war was over”. Following extensive consultation by Community Dialogue and other organisations with groups involved in community relations, it was decided to form a Working Group in early 2015 under the umbrella theme ‘Movement for Change’ to reignite and recalibrate the peace process, particularly the partnership between political institutions and communities on the ground. This initiative merged into the Community Relations Council’s ‘Galvanising the Peace’ initiative comprising around 30 peace and reconciliation groups. The broad coalition found there was a growing hunger for alternative ways of resolving shared social issues instead of an imperative to vote along sectarian lines. Over 45 facilitated workshop discussions were held across Northern Ireland between July and December 2015 with over 642 participants. Consultations were conducted with community and community relations groups, churches, students, teachers, academics, the LGBT community, political parties, local Council good relations officers, band forums and women’s groups. With financial support from a number of philanthropic agencies [EU, International Fund for Ireland, Atlantic Philanthropies], the Working Group produced a paper (2016) seeking to nurture a non-party political civic society movement of participative democracy, articulating an agreed vision for the future and proposing practical responses to ongoing issues causing division, intolerance and exclusion.

Our civic innovation programme Over the past 15 months and through the Co-design Workshops that we have organised with polarised, marginalised citizens, we have found that the key obstacle to building a unified participative civic society in a post-conflict society is low societal capacity. This gets expressed through alienation, the experience of not belonging and powerlessness. While many citizens are disengaged from politics and lack a unifying vision, they are hungry to participate in alternative decision-making pathways. This has been repeatedly stressed in our dialogues over many years and was

120

Jim O’Neill

recently reinforced by the participants in our Community Foundation Northern Ireland Prototype Project. It therefore presents a major new challenge to Community Dialogue to transform marginalised people into socially engaged citizens, harness their power to develop locally based projects to meet their own needs and to engage in advocacy work and coalition-building for those needs. To fill this social deficit, we have set about nourishing the emergence of a critical mass of socially engaged citizens and will empower them through skills training to become builders of an inclusive peaceful society. We have an established 30-strong Facilitators Network of diverse facilitation/training practitioners and community partners to assist with this ambitious programme. Part of this work will include what we have done well before in engaging community workers and strengthening their capacity for consensus-building skills within groups. We hope this will be a seed-bed for multiple emerging participative projects that will contribute to breaking down barriers between sectors, identities, ideologies and classes. We know this cannot be achieved on our own and we intend to build on the cross-sectoral momentum across NI already established through working together in the Galvanising the Peace coalition where an agreed future vision was forged.

Who we are and what we do Community Dialogue works with diverse marginalised citizens, using consensusbuilding dialogue and capacity-building training to challenge intolerance, build conflict management capacity and nurture positive social activism. Our vision is of a society built on a foundation of meaningful, sustainable relationships where equality, inclusion and social justice are reflected in the lives of all of its people. Our mission is to engage civic society in dialogue and training that builds consensus on, and progresses towards a shared, inclusive, participative and sustainable future.

Appendix to case study 7.1 Michael Hall’s process steps for transcribing and editing the contributions made in the Community think tanks. – Having transcribed the full series of discussions, I print the transcription out in its entirety. – Sometimes I am left with 60-plus (A5) pages. My ultimate aim is a 32-page pamphlet.

7 Inter-communal Dialogue

– – –

–

–

121

I do a quick read through the print-out trying to divide the topics covered into 6 themes. I do a quick second read, and this time, in the margins, I give each paragraph a different colour using 6 fluorescent makers. I then go back to my draft and copy and paste every paragraph according to its designated colour. So, instead of a single 60-page document, I now have six 10page documents. I stick up each set of ten pages on the wall beside my computer and read through them carefully, inserting relevant paragraphs into place in a new draft, putting a black marker through paragraphs already inserted (and trimming where possible as I go along). Having got a new draft now divided in six themed ‘chapters’, I begin again the process of trimming and editing.

References Community Dialogue (2016). Galvanising the Peace: The future for conflict transformation in Northern Ireland. Hall, M. (2020). A History of Island Pamphlets. Newtownabbey: Island Publications. For more information contact Michael Hall at: http://[email protected] Isaacs, W. (1997). Dialogue and Art of Thinking Together. Doubleday. Island Pamphlets. Most of them are available on the CAIN website together with a full list of the published pamphlets. https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/islandpublications/index Lennon, B. (2004). Peace Comes Dropping Slow: Dialogue and conflict management in Northern Ireland. Community Dialogue.

8 Making Peace with the Past Abstract: Women, Trauma and Conflict (Holly Taylor) – The overwhelming majority of those killed in the Troubles were male. This meant that widowed mothers bore the responsibility of their families alone and had to hold their family together, fragmented by trauma, grief, pain and loss. Women experienced grief from the loss of their spouse and the exposure to violence had a detrimental impact upon their mental health. Access to support services depended on geographical location, whether they trusted their confidants and how far they had processed their trauma. Despite this, many women demonstrated leadership skills and qualities within community organisations. The Glencree workshops with victims and former combatants 1998–2008 (Geoffrey Corry) – Four different programmes of bottom-up trauma healing workshops involved victim/survivors of the Troubles and former combatants from Britain, Northern Ireland and Ireland. Personal journeys were made by victims to find their voice after years of silence and to tell their story within the safe space of a residential workshop. Similar journeys were made by ex-combatants. This led to small dialogue encounters of both groups and eco-adventure workshops in the wilderness territory of South Africa. Humanising moments were experienced when hurt was acknowledged by the other. Keywords: women, impact of conflict, hurt, trauma recovery, support measures, peer storytelling, safe emotional space, ex-combatant, humanising moment

Introduction Geoffrey Corry A peace process has to find ways of working through the legacy of violence not just at the high level through a Truth and Reconciliation Commission like the South African model, but also to create ongoing opportunities at community level for victim support groups and former combatants to own the healing process. In Northern Ireland, there has been a lack of political will to process the legacy of violence and reveal the truth of what happened. The negotiations around the GFA did not address the significant needs of victims/survivors because insufficient policy preparation had taken place between London, Dublin and Belfast. Victim groups had not yet been formed by 1998 to make an impact and most remained silent and voiceless, still suffering from post-traumatic stress. Political pressures came from both republicans and loyalists within the talks process for the early release of political prisoners within two years. This provision was agreed in the final hours of the negotiations in order to acknowledge their contribution behind the scenes to supporting the emerging political settlement. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-008

124

8 Making Peace with the Past

Consequently, there was only one sentence placed into the final GFA text: “It is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation.” Despite efforts by the Women’s Coalition to gather support for setting up an institution for ‘dealing with the past’, no formal mechanism for truth recovery was included in the agreement. Politically, it was too difficult at the time to set out any transitional justice roadmap for dealing with the consequences of the past. Truth recovery and trauma healing for victim/survivors had to wait.

Four attempts to deal with the past To date twenty-five years later, formal political agreement between the British and Irish governments and the five main NI parties does not exist on how to handle the legacy of the past despite a number of attempts over the past 15 years. It is now getting very late to have a proper process as victim/survivors and perpetrators pass away. – The first effort was made by Paul Murphy, the NI Secretary of State, when he went to South Africa in 2004 to find out about the workings and outcomes of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. – In 2007, the British government appointed a Consultative Group on the Past (CGP) chaired by former Archbishop Lord Robin Eames and Denis Bradley, former priest and a member of the NI Policing Board. The Group spent over a year trying to find an acceptable way forward and came up with a number of innovative recommendations for a legacy commission, a reconciliation forum and limited immunity. They found it difficult to hold the pain of the victims alongside handling the moral ambiguity of the state running counter-insurgency agents. Unfortunately, despite its meticulous work, their proposals were never implemented. – In 2013, two foreign policy experts from the United States, Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan, took on the task of getting consensus among the five political leaders in the NI Executive about a way forward on legacy issues. They offered a considered report containing “the best package of ideas and compromises” that built on the Eames/Bradley structure of units but used different titles and names. Disappointingly, they failed to get the joint backing of the five parties. – The fourth attempt involved the five parties returning to the table in 2014 to enter into direct negotiations with the two governments. They actually succeeded in getting agreement on legacy issues in the Stormont House Agreement. A structure of four units based on the Haass/O’Sullivan proposals would operate for five years. Again, these units were not established. Despite further consultations and new proposals in 2021 by the British government involving an amnesty, the political impasse continues with no high-level agreement. This has created much frustration: “We haven’t dealt with the legacy of the past, we haven’t dealt with the hurt we have caused each other.” (Island, 102: p. 31)

8 Making Peace with the Past

125

The vacuum has been partially filled by a number of independent and communitybased NGOs who have found innovative ways to heal the hurt of the past. These include the policy delopment work of Healing Through Remembering (HTR), support for emotional healing provided by Wave, the South East Fermanagh Foundation (SEFF) for unionist victims in the borderlnds and the Ardoyne Commemoration Project (ACP) in North Belfast. Presbyterian clergy and Church members shared their experiences and reflections on the impact of the violence in a research project that was subsequently called ‘Considering Grace’ (Ganiel & Yohanis, 2019).

8.1 Case Study – Women, Conflict and Trauma Holly Taylor A post-conflict society is reconstructed and repaired upon foundations of optimism and hope, with many of the building blocks heavy laden with loss, grief, suffering and pain. If a society is to begin to heal and address the legacy of conflict, inclusive of trauma, then it must find a way to implement a healthy and sustainable peace process. Inherently, this will be significantly more delicate, lengthy and unstable, if undertaken through intentional efforts. With regards to the widely diverse individual experiences of both conflict and peace, it is inherent to note that each member of a community will not have obtained the same experience of either. My own experience of living, researching and working within post-conflict communities has emphasised to me that individual experiences vary significantly, particularly when an individual’s gender is taken into consideration. Men and women indeed have similar experiences of conflict. For example this may be the grief which is experienced due to the loss of a family member, or indeed the detrimental impact upon their mental health when exposed to traumatic events, or violent and destructive circumstances. However, many differentiations can be attributed to the gender of the individual. Particularly for women their experience of conflict and trauma is often shaped due to the societal expectations and provisions which are placed upon them, impacting their lives to a significant extent both inside and outside of the home.

The experience of Women and conflict: Northern Ireland Women across generations, from different backgrounds, religions and cultures are inherently impacted by the presence of conflict and its following legacy, with Northern Ireland being no exception. For a duration of more than fifty years, Northern Ireland experienced a volatile conflict, referred to as the ‘Troubles’, which effected every aspect of life throughout society. The human cost of this violence was high. Between 1969 and 1998, 3,601

126

Holly Taylor

people were killed, determining that at least 6,800 people have experienced the loss of life of one member of their immediate family to the conflict (Fay, Morrissey and Smyth 1999, p. 201). Of those who died, an ‘overwhelming majority of those killed in the Troubles have been male, with the death risk greater in the younger age groups, the 20–24 age group being the highest, and almost 26 per cent of all victims ages 21 or under’ (Fay, Morrissey and Smyth 1999, p. 201). In these times of great upheaval and disruption to normality, this case study examines how women and their families were impacted by conflict, and the support measures which were available to them. Their homes were no longer their protective space or safe havens. The heavy blanket of trauma cloaked the home, and the dreaded aura of violence and destruction seeped inside these once guarded spaces. When considering the impact of conflict upon women, we must ask ourselves the following questions (but we may not yet have the answers): – How many women experienced trauma? – How many women were impacted by the loss of a loved one? – How many mothers lost their children? – How many wives lost their husband? – How many daughters lost their father? – How many sisters lost their brothers?

The Impact Upon Family and Personal Life Within a home, a family’s private space, there are societal expectations placed upon women in which they are to excel, yet these expectations do not clearly acknowledge that many women are the central force in their family, holding together the bonds which they have nurtured and strengthened. These roles, which significantly demonstrate women’s strength, resilience and tenacity, are exemplified during the presence of conflict, as they hold their family together whilst piecing the fragmentations caused by trauma, grief, suffering, pain and loss. For women who were married, it has been asserted by Finch (1983), that ‘Marriage is not simply a limited liability contract, but each partner – the theme runs – brings to the marriage their total persona and its consequences, which the other has to respond to, handle and deal with’. Additionally, within the home, although a wife specifically ‘may not be on anyone’s payroll’, there indeed would be ‘no guarantee that she will remain untouched by the organisation’ for which her husband worked’ (Finch 1983, p. 21). This was particularly true, if there was a ‘potential competition for the male breadwinner’s time’ and if ‘the worker has a particular skill which may be needed at any time, perhaps in emergencies’ (Finch 1983, p. 29). For women with child caring and domestic responsibilities, they could indeed pursue other activities, but only if ‘alternative arrangements’ could be made for passing on their duties in the household

8 Making Peace with the Past

127

(Finch 1983, p. 24). Finch reminds us of the additional challenges faced by women within their homes, highlighting the deep impact of the presence of conflict. Across Northern Ireland, it was women ‘who bore the responsibility of their families alone, with husbands dead or imprisoned’, and who later ‘explained that they had no time to deal with their emotions or assess their own damage’ (Donahoe 2017, p. 7). Through combining the absence of time, space and supportive measures for women to fully address their own needs, excluding that of their family, coupled with the continuing exposure to violence and suffering, there was an inherently negative effect upon both their physical and mental health with ‘the emotional and psychological trauma of the conflict’ ruminating to today (Donahoe 2017).

Support for women and empowerment of women Indeed, there were excellent community level support services available for the women who were impacted by the conflict. Additionally, many found support individually, through one another or local women’s centres, and within their respective families or social circles. However, women only sought the assistance of these support services after taking into consideration several different factors. These ranged from considerations upon their personal and family security, if they had the means to do so or indeed if they were comfortable in sharing perhaps what may have been the worst experiences of their lives. Additionally, the access to different services and support measures were dependent upon the geographical location in which they resided or the proximity in which the services were located, how trustworthy they believed their confidants to be, and how far they had both processed and acknowledged the trauma to which they had been exposed. Despite the beneficial actions which could be taken in alleviating the stress resulting from the trauma which may be impacting upon the individual, such as sharing experiences or undertaking different activities or hobbies, this was not always widely conducted due to the named reasons. Additionally, it must also be noted that for many women, it was not possible to utilise these services in any instance, and many women often continued through their daily life without having any supportive measures in place. In the present day, there is a both and need and requirement for support measures to be continually made available for women, particularly due to their strong contribution to women’s empowerment. The many efforts which have contributed to both support and empowerment has been reflected well through women’s centres, charities, forums and the provision of opportunities. The existence and continued efforts provide many women with opportunities to be leaders in their communities which grants them with means to develop their own skills and capabilities. This work must continue to be supported across society, as Kilmurray and McWilliams (2011, p. 10) acknowledge that as ‘the peace-building process is multi-layered, contextual, and at times formal or informal, women need to be seen and heard at all levels’.

128

Holly Taylor

When women are supported and empowered, they become confident in their abilities to bring resulting change, and it is important to recognise and acknowledge the efforts which many women have made and continue to make throughout a community level. Through both self and collective empowerment, and the demonstration of excellent leadership skills and qualities, women consistently demonstrated their capabilities. As referenced by Sales (1997), they contributed to ‘an active role in the politics and society of Northern Ireland’, in addition to having a presence ‘at the forefront of community organisations which have attempted to unite both communities around issues of common concern’.

Concluding Remarks By supporting and empowering women, and through providing them with spaces at decision-making tables, we inherently will better our societies. Through working together upon initiatives of interest, and demonstrating their leadership capabilities within their communities, women have consistently demonstrated their strong abilities and skills in supporting themselves and one another. Additionally, in their support and empowerment of one another, Kilmurray and McWilliams (2011, p. 1) noted that ‘when they came prepared, women made a positive contribution to the peace negotiations that resulted in the Good Friday, or Belfast, Agreement 1998’. As women have demonstrated their resilience and capabilities time and time again in both public and private spheres, provisions must be consistently made to provide women with opportunities to utilise these skills, as an ‘inclusion of women in such negotiations is not merely a question of gender equity but also contributes to an improved negotiating process and the creation of a more durable peace agreement’ (Kilmurray and McWilliams 2011, p. 1). As they further reflect, this does not come without challenge: ‘ensuring that visible, visionary women maintain a central role in rebuilding their societies remains an unfinished project’. Ultimately, to support women through the loss and trauma they have experienced is to empower them, and these efforts must be consistently sought after if Northern Ireland is to successfully address the legacy of the conflict.

8 Making Peace with the Past

129

8.2 Case Study – Healing the wounds: The Glencree workshops with victims and former combatants 1998–2008 Geoffrey Corry “We are all part of a damaged society and we all have a contribution to its healing.” – Dr Alex Boraine at the Third Glencree Summer School, August 1996. Glencree always has a special place in my heart. Without my time there, I would not be where I am now. The healing and transformation which happened there was phenomenal. – Jo Berry (2020), daughter of Sir Anthony Berry MP who died from the bomb placed by Patrick Magee at the Brighton Hotel in October 1984.

Introduction In his opening address to the Third Glencree Summer School in 1996, Dr Alex Boraine was quite emphatic. He had just taken up his appointment as Vice Chair of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). For a peace settlement to remain solid, there must be recognition of the truth about what happened in the past. It needed to be known and shared in public. “It does not bring the dead back from life but back from silence.” The Belfast Good Friday Agreement (GFA 1998) did not explicitly address truth issues for victims or provide any amnesty mechanism for former combatants who offered truth statements on past violations. Unfortunately, no party was ready to go that far and insufficient thought had been given to some kind of TRC. The Irish prime minister, Bertie Ahern, canvassed the idea at the talks but found resistance. Before he concluded his year-long investigation in May 1998, the NI Victims Commissioner Sir Kenneth Bloomfield came to a consultation day at the Glencree Centre for Reconciliation up in the hills outside Dublin to meet with southern victims of the Troubles. Since they had never met each other before, there were animated discussions on what needed to be done in the post-GFA climate and how to support the needs of victims on an ongoing basis. For Glencree, it turned out to be a significant day and opened the door to an innovative ten-year bottom-up intervention responding to the needs of victim/survivors and ex-combatants. It comprised of four initiatives offering storytelling, large group circles and nature-based journey trails that developed in an organic way, one following on after the other: 1. The LIVE project for victim/survivors of the Troubles from 1968 to 1998. 2. The former combatants project to support the transition from prison to peace work in local communities.

130

Geoffrey Corry

3.

Informal victim-combatant dialogue encounters between participants from each of the above two parallel projects 4. The eco-healing project Sustainable Peace Network (2004–2009) for both victim/survivors and former combatants in wilderness journeys in Scotland and South Africa. While several attempts were made over the twenty years after GFA to get agreement between the five NI parties and the two governments on dealing with the past, no comprehensive legal framework or official TRC process got off the ground. The four Glencree interventions therefore stand out as a unique and timely example of “peacebuilding from below” carried on quietly in the background and implementing a bottom-up psycho-social workshop approach to transitional justice. They partially filled the societal and healing vacuum in the immediate years of a post-agreement society. 1. ‘Live’ (Let’s Involve the Victim’s Experience) 1998–2008 This programme brought together victims/survivors who had suffered the loss of a loved one or experienced an emotional/physical injury in the conflict from all four communities – both Catholic nationalist and Protestant unionist communities in Northern Ireland, the ‘forgotten’ victims of the IRA bombs in English cities and the loyalist bombs in the Irish Republic. At that time, victims were being told: “Get on with life, don’t be looking back into the past, you need to move forward.” Some saw themselves as an embarrassment to the peace process (De Paor 2014, p. 116). In the residential weekend safe space of Glencree, they shared their lived experiences of the conflict and reached a deeper understanding of its meaning for each other. While it was initially intended to bring victims and former combatants into the same programme, it was realised early on this was too ambitious. Each group needed time on their own and did not want to be part of something where they were required or expected to meet the other side (Verwoerd 2014, p. 132). Victims needed to work on their own trauma in the first instance and were simply not ready to meet former combatants. In the words of Barbara Corkie, one of the facilitators: “You must tread your own journey first and share with each other in your ‘ploughing boots’. If it gets stored inside, it eats you up.” Within the first four years, the LIVE project held 37 residential weekends at the Glencree Centre with 110 victims/survivors taking part at different times in the programme. It was led by Jan de Vries and Jacinta de Paor from Trinity College Dublin. Each of the weekend workshops had three main components: – Opportunities for participants to tell their personal stories to each other through nondirective ‘peer storytelling’ followed by reflective discussion in the large group circle;

8 Making Peace with the Past

– –

131

Inputs from professionals and therapists on issues directly related to managing post-traumatic shock and subsequent bereavement; Social activities and recreational walking in the nearby hills and lakes for informal trauma healing and getting to know each other.

The ‘peer storytelling’ process became a way for victim/survivors to recover their voice at their own pace out of many years of silence, achieve greater self-awareness of those painful events and work towards as much emotional healing as possible. It enabled one victim to tell another victim their ‘lived experience’ without interruption, trying to recall what actually happened in the horrific event and putting into words how it emotionally impacted them. It was then reciprocated by the listener telling their own story and truth to the person who had gone first. As Jacinta de Paor, Coordinator of LIVE explains (2014, p. 116): Talking about traumatic memories presented an opportunity for detailed processing of those memories and for many it was the first time they had done anything like this. The empathic support that participants created relationally within the group ensured that often, people instinctively understood each other without having to express it verbally. Sometimes just listening and being witness to the stories told was powerful enough in and of itself.

The more participants had the chance to share their story and recover more bits from memory, the more easily they were able to cognitively understand their own thoughts and feelings regarding the trauma. Three aspects of this process need to be highlighted. First, it was not a professional therapy project where an individual victim talked one-to-one with a counsellor but the story was told to a fellow victim as listener. On first hearing the other’s story, the response tended to be: “Wow, that’s huge. . .it’s worse than my experience.” This became a sort of trigger moment for the listener victim and gave them more courage to connect with the memory of their own traumatic event as well as finding the words to explain what happened to them. In the words of another participant: “At first I was nervous, then we got to know each other and then we went deeper and shared the dark stories. The rawness was exposed, causing emotions to run deep. Then from the depths, balm arose, and in the sharing, healing began.” Secondly, there was no pressure to self-disclose in the subsequent large group what they had not already shared with someone with whom they felt safe. You could stay as a witness or the role of a participant observer for some time until you felt comfortable to open up. As one victim explained (De Vries & De Paor, 2005) “It was a space to feel without sharing, so that I can work through my mind without expressing it openly, but I am given the atmosphere to focus on it, with the awareness that the place is full of support if I need it.” By allowing themselves to feel and think of their pain, they find ways of gradually reducing the emotions associated with the trauma. This explains how individuals became emotionally stronger without verbally sharing their story. It was like going through a series of steps in which

132

Geoffrey Corry

they made progress (or not) with gradual rather than sudden reductions in pain, grief, anger and/or anxiety. The group setting allowed them to work on their own personal journey of thinking about it, internally processing their own personal narrative and then sharing it in a healing moment when they were ready to say it with one person or within the group. Thirdly, participants were able to hear stories from ‘the other side’ from fellow victim participants – a Protestant unionist, a Catholic nationalist or someone from England – and gain a new perspective by no longer seeing them as ‘the enemy’ but as human: “We found our hatred dissipated after a while.” Culturally, participants from Great Britain found it difficult at times to fit in with a group primarily from Northern Ireland, while many Protestant unionist victims were not ready to hear the nationalist story. In summer 2002, three single identity weekends were held with groups from Protestant communities to support their storytelling to each other. Another process used to build on the peer storytelling in pairs was ‘the fishbowl’. This combined the intimacy of a small group of five or six sitting in the middle of the large group to share their stories while the surrounding circle sat as observer participants. One chair in the middle was kept empty for someone from the outer circle to join them if they felt ready to share their story. At the end, the outer circle was invited to share their reflections (De Vries & De Paor, 2005).

Figure 8.1: The refurbished British military Barracks Building at the Glencree Centre that housed the LIVE residential weekends. The Glencree heart logo was constructed on the hill to the right of the steps from stones laid by victims in memory of loved ones lost in the Troubles. Photo: Geoffrey Corry.

An effective technique to break the ice during the opening session on the Friday night of a weekend was the ‘secret friend’, devised by the facilitation team. Each participant writes down his or her name on a piece of paper. These are put in a hat and each person draws a name without saying whom they have drawn. This is their secret

8 Making Peace with the Past

133

friend for that weekend. At the beginning of each session, the box is opened to see what has been put in there. Written messages are read and small gifts are unwrapped in front of the whole group. Only at the end of the weekend is the identity of the secret friend revealed! This encouragement to do something nice for someone else, provide positive acknowledgement, have fun along with suspense were much appreciated and added a light touch to the sessions (De Vries & De Paor 2005). To prevent the weekend getting too heavy, informal activities and informal sessions were organised at the request of participants. They involved guest speakers, simulation games, relaxation exercises, massage, art, interactive theatre, exercise in coping with stress, and meeting with politicians. The Saturday afternoon session was an outing to local places spending social time together. Consequently, social friendships were formed along the way that led to an informal support network. Participants returned again and again. This led to concerns among Glencree facilitators that some participants developed a social dependence on the workshops and ‘a stake’ in not moving on. Another challenge was when some participants returned home, they found a lack of support from their own community and, when later workshops met with former combatants, they encountered accusations of betrayal. Emotional support was provided for those individuals who needed to leave a session because it was too painful to hear or to save themselves from being overwhelmed. Of course, it must also be acknowledged that some felt that the LIVE weekends were “simply not for them”. 2. The ex-combatants project (2001–6) The impetus for this programme came from the early release of political prisoners in two batches in 1999 and 2000. It was one of the more controversial aspects of GFA. Out of 450 prisoners released, 196 were Loyalist, 242 were Republican prisoners and the remaining 12 were non-aligned (McEvoy & Shirlow, 2009). Yet only about twenty of them have engaged in violence again and returned to prison for breaching the terms of their licences. The ex-combatants project became a separate parallel project to LIVE and provided a supportive space for former paramilitaries, many of whom had spent time together inside the Long Kesh/Maze prison during the 80’s and 90’s. Some had got to know each other quite well through political discussions among themselves across the fence and enlightened by their reading from prison library books. This had encouraged new strategic political thinking that underpinned the peace process. This meant that when they left prison, most continued their work for political and justice issues, joining local cross-community reconciliation groups and community based restorative justice projects in Belfast. Glencree received funding from the EU and Atlantic Philanthropies for the four years 2002–5 to assist social re-integration. Both funders respected the need to have separate programmes for victims and ex-combatants. In March 2001, Wilhelm Verwoerd

134

Geoffrey Corry

was appointed project co-ordinator and brought with him the experience of being a research officer with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa (1996–2000). Within its first year, 45 former combatants had taken part in the residential weekends and famously ‘talked into the night’. Many of the participants in the Glencree workshops were well connected to the political parties of PUP and UDP on the loyalist side and Sinn Fein on the republican side. The earlier workshops were attended by senior PSNI police officers for political discussions at a time when the political environment was not publicly conducive to such encounters. Remarkably, they were joined by state security forces such as former RUC police and UDR soldiers from Northern Ireland, police constables in English cities who had been bombed, soldiers in the British army who had served in Northern Ireland as well as Irish soldiers who served on the border. An early challenge was to find the most appropriate language for the group to describe themselves. Was the term ‘ex-combatant’ the best one when it also included ex-soldiers, ex-policemen and ex-freedom fighters? They brainstormed this question in one workshop and came up with all sorts of names to describe their group. Some former soldiers and RUC police were not comfortable with the term ‘ex combatant’ triggering a dialogue on the nature of the conflict. Was it a civil war, an armed struggle, a dirty sectarian war or just the Troubles? At the end of the day, no better term could be found and the sub-groups of security forces/state actors and paramilitary/non-state actors came to respect each other. In effect, a soldier or police officer is a combatant because of their chosen profession and work. Another challenge was to overcome suspicions from highly politicised participants about Glencree itself and what it was trying to achieve. Was it really neutral? Was information being passed on to the Irish government? An advisory working group was created from the participants to help run the project and liaise with support groups like EPIC for loyalist ex-prisoners and Coiste for republican ex-prisoners. Recurring tensions between each group required careful handling, particularly for “non-combatants” to understand the dynamics between former combatants that often got expressed through dark humour. Much effort was put into the process of humanising the face of ex-combatants and security forces to each other. By introducing the circle process with a ‘talking stone’ being passed or picked up whenever you wanted to speak, but not interrupting the other, this enabled everyone to feel equally valued. Discovering new language also became important: “force” versus “violence”, distinguishing between degrees of suffering versus the so-called “hierarchy of victims” and for those from “wider society” backgrounds the tendency to undervalue their less direct conflict experiences. Tim Aubertin (2017, p. 40), a British foot soldier in Operation Motorman (1971), declares it was not an intellectual journey “and I wouldn’t describe it as a political journey, it’s very much a personal journey that I’m sharing.” He adds that you can read the books and the statistics but what is missing is sharing your own personal experience.

8 Making Peace with the Past

135

Both soldiers and police who attended found there was very little support from within their organisations to work with trauma in a group setting and felt forgotten about. For the Gardaí participants who served on the frontline south of the border as police, their unprocessed trauma went all the way back to the early seventies. They also realised their own stress at the time was handled in a private way and never got any official recognition for it. The workshops gave them the chance to talk about it, work it through and re-think what the conflict was all about. Some also shared their journey of trauma recovery with victims on the ‘Live’ programme.

3. Face-to-face dialogue between victim/survivors and former combatants As the two separate programmes developed alongside each other with bonding among themselves, each side tended to construct their own internal wall for different reasons. The survivors needed to create their own zone of safety while the excombatants wanted to insulate themselves from accepting responsibility for what they had done. If they were going to meet up, a concern arose about the possibility of litigation from victims or criminal liability where disclosures of ‘truth’ and information about a specific incident were made in the workshop circle. Because no legal immunity existed for specific truth telling around an incident, such discussion had to be avoided for fear that every participant would be incriminated under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The possibility of dialogue started on the victim’s side when they wanted a former republican or loyalist combatant to come into the room on their own to talk with victims in a circle. Not everyone was ready for this encounter and it became voluntary for those who wanted to listen to the combatant’s experience and vice versa to hear the story of a victim. It was always held as an alternate session in a separate place in another part of the building for those who did not want to attend. One of the first to sit confidentially in a circle with victims was Martin Meehan, a former Belfast IRA Brigade commander. It was a three hour meeting with probably 30 participants (White, 2003). After everyone introduced themselves, victims were able to tell Martin with emotion what happened and the questions they still had going around in their head. They were hard questions. Why were innocent victims picked upon? Why were civilians part of the collateral damage or part of the shootings? Why do you think violence will achieve your desired outcome? Yet his willingness to be there with his wife was a profound humanising experience for people: they could be heard as well as ask those questions – in so far as it was possible to get answers. He spoke about the two decades he had spent in prison and his subsequent election as MLA. While Martin offered a sincere apology for the casualties of his actions, he could not apologise for the war itself which was, he believed, a just war. It was a further three years down the road in personal journeys before four or five combatants were willing to come into a circle to meet four to five victims. In retrospect, it was just incredible how much thinking or movement had gone on

136

Geoffrey Corry

inside themselves that they could sit comfortably in the room together for their own weekend to explore issues involving the past and to become aware of each other’s lived experience. Inter-group dialogue was preferred to one-on-one because it was less threatening and allowed a diversity of life experiences to be shared. Glencree called it the H approach (see Figure 8.2). On the left hand side of the H was the journey made by victim/survivors and on the right hand side a parallel yet different journey by the former combatants. In the middle was the challenge of gradually creating a bridge for each to engage with the other in a circle process of humanising the relationship. 1. “Let’s Involve the Victim’s Experience” The LIVE programme recovering the needs of victims/survivors Steps in trauma recovery 1. Moving out of silence through mindfulness and non-verbal body work 2. Naming the hurt and what happened through telling your story to others 3. Speak out: regaining your dignity through affirming the truth 4. Preparing to meet ‘the other’ so they can hear your anger in a safe space

2. Former Combatants programme One programme with 2 pillars that Accommodating the subsequently provides cross-cutting needs of politically opportunities for engagement and motivated non-state interaction ex-combatants and State security forces Circle process of

The Glencree “H” Vision

re-humanising relationships: “Something happens when each of us is heard, understood and acknowledged” Seeing the humanity in one another

Steps in re-integration and accepting responsibility 1. Revisiting how you were radicalised and sucked in to take up the gun for the cause 2. “We are victims as well” – naming your social humiliation 3. Being faced with examining the impact and futility of violence 4. Overcoming fears of meeting the anger & moral judgement of victims

Figure 8.2: How the first two programmes came together to create the ‘H’ allowing a bridge to be built for inter-group dialogue and potential forgiveness.

Preparation for each inter-group encounter was vital on the victim side not to rush into one but also on the combatant side to check out availability and readiness. Participation in dialogue must be completely voluntary. Everyone needs to know the essential dynamic of a two-way process of dialogue of not only being heard but also being expected to listen, going back and forth, sometimes listening and sometimes talking. Yet no victim/survivor should be made to feel inferior if they do not speak in a session. This raises the question of victim readiness to engage and their inner strength. On the one hand, knowing that safe space is essential for each story to be heard. On the other hand, knowing that healing only comes by working through difficult issues that can be painful and emotionally distressing when facing a former combatant. Another important preparation task was to clarify the intent behind the engagement with the other. Survivors tended to come to the dialogue with unrealistic expectations – for example, to seek an apology or an explanation for a specific incident. It had to be carefully organised so that victims and perpetrators of the same incident

8 Making Peace with the Past

137

were never together in the session. In those circumstances, a surrogate combatant was found to stand in for that weekend encounter. “Obviously we got into the circle people who came because they believed in peace. We didn’t have in the circle on the combatant side, those who are cold blooded murderers for whom revenge or criminal gain was paramount.” How do you ensure that the interactive dialogue does not remain superficial? The dialogue really starts when the group has heard and acknowledged the pain and hurt of each other’s story of what happened – how it emotionally and physically impacted on their lives as well as the burden they had carried for years. For the survivors, they will want to express anger and get answers to their questions: “I hope that by doing this it may prevent such events [like a bomb] happening to someone else in the future.” For the combatants, it was important for the group to hear about their local circumstances and what happened to them in the early part of the Troubles. This includes how their family was brutalised, how they had to go down the paramilitary path to defend their community and take up the gun. If participants don’t hear each other’s story and the emotional impact of the violence, then they don’t get to hear each other’s pain.

The humanising moment After many years of their personal journey out of trauma, the profound discovery of ‘humanising’ happened for victims who participated in the Glencree direct dialogues. In the words of a victim: “Well, it took, some time to be aware. My God, if I grew up in the Falls road in the 1970s, I’d be sitting in your seat or if I grew up in South Armagh, I’d be sitting in his seat.” So the realisation dawned that it depended on where you lived or how you were affected by the violence that led to you getting involved in paramilitary activity.” It began to be called the humanising moment when the victim becomes human in the face of the combatant or when the ex-combatant becomes human in the face of the victim. When a widow whose husband was killed during the Troubles heard the story of a former paramilitary, she said: “Having heard his story I can see how if I’d had his life I might easily have done the same as him and gone down the same path”. In the words of another victim: “And we never really talk about the big ‘F’ factor of ‘forgiveness’, or the big ‘R’ word of ‘reconciliation’. But it happens instinctively at a gut level. It happens in a kind of human interactive way when you’re there. You’re able to enter into the other person’s experience; now whether that’s capital ‘F’ forgiveness, somebody else may have to determine, but it happened in an instinctive way as opposed to some moral, theological magic of what happens in forgiveness. So these were profound human changing events for people.” When that humanising moment has been experienced in the circle, it is then more difficult for former combatants to ever think about ever engaging in violence again. For survivors, there is a new understanding of how people can get drawn into a conflict.

138

Geoffrey Corry

Several participants have told us how their hatred dissipated after they had been in the company of victims/survivors from the other communities. As one man put it: “Where I once felt bitterness and hatred, I have found an inner peace and tolerance towards those I saw as the enemy. I have learned to see another side to beliefs I once had.” Seeing the ‘humanity’ in others, rather than being caught up in perverse arguments, was a new beginning. This allowed divergent perspectives on the conflict and its history to be shared and led to changed perceptions of the legitimacy of the sentiments surrounding the conflict in the other communities. One of the tougher issues was the question of political violence and the group’s attempt to understand why combatants took up the gun: “Now for a combatant to get to that point, to ask that question of themselves was absolutely huge; because are they going to betray their fellow comrades who stood beside them and got shot in pursuit of the cause? Are they going to say violence was futile? So it’s difficult. You’re really on the edge of vulnerability when you approach something of that kind.” And maybe the dialogue gets around to asking another huge question: “What did the violence actually achieve after all of those thirty years?” It must be remembered that all the combatants who joined in the Glencree project had served time in prison and used those years to think through in a serious way why they took up the gun. If they were not interested in those political issues in prison, they usually went to the gym and would be unlikely to find themselves coming to weekends at Glencree. 4. Sustainable Peace network (2004–09) While storytelling was a crucial part of people’s recovery and became a central part of the healing process, it posed lots of questions: What do you do after the story telling is done? What does ‘moving on’ mean? How do we ensure that participant expectations are met within a peace network? How do we reach out and involve new people? After about two years of participating in workshops, ex-combatants wanted to move on from discussion to doing something more active. This formed the nucleus of the Sustainable Peace network of those Glencree participants who had come through a process of experiential learning and wanted to meet again and continue to support each other (Verwoerd 2013). It started from an idea that Wilhelm Verwoerd wanted to explore of how the wild natural environment of mountains and rivers can be used as a learning resource for post-violence work. Before he came to Ireland from South Africa in 2001, Wilhelm went on the Wilderness Leadership course held by Bruce Dell in Durban. By taking people away from their own environment and ethnic conflict on a physical activity, it broadens their level of vision and amounts to eco-healing. Wilhelm then discovered that Alistair Little, the former loyalist prisoner, was thinking along the same lines after he had his own healing experience of walking the Lake District. Together, they arranged a visit of 6 ex-combatants and 6 victims in November 2002 to take part in a wilderness experience facilitated by the Wilderness Leadership School in South Africa.

8 Making Peace with the Past

139

The results were so positive, they followed it up two years later with a more diverse and inclusive group of 18 victims and ex-combatants from both NI communities, the south and Britain. There were ten males and eight females. The visit started with a memorable visit to Robben Island to meet with former prisoners who showed them around the prison facilities and the cell where Nelson Mandela spent over twenty years. The group were allowed a special favour of staying overnight on the island, not granted to others. They then travelled by bus for the five-day wilderness trail in the Drakensberg mountains embracing activities like “walk-and-talks”, solo time and group activities exploring a local environment. From 2006 onwards, each year a committed group of 10 to 15 people were selected to take part together in a year long process that included a number of residential events and nature-based activities in Scotland and South Africa. Careful selection and preparation of participants from previous workshops took much time and patience in advance. Many raised their own funds from local communities or through the network of the SPN steering group who held an annual meeting of all the groups and kept in regular communication via email. In 2007, Annie Bowman (2017, pp. 281–2) took part in the wilderness trail and it was her first time meeting former combatants. Her father was a British soldier who served as a bomb disposal officer and was killed in Derry while on duty in 1973. She grew up in a household of silence where her mother and her uncle never talked about what happened. She had to gradually piece together bits and pieces about Northern Ireland. She was “absolutely terrified” meeting the ex-IRA members, but gradually by talking to individuals one-to-one, she found they “were people who had been hurt too and needed to tell me about their lives and needed me to listen. Their view was that my dad was a legitimate target [and were surprised that their actions] had had such a deep, traumatic and long-lasting effect on my life.” After the trail experience, she visited Derry to have more deep conversations with many people about how the IRA had demonised their enemy. She could see how those conversations changed the way people viewed their own actions: “more importantly, they talk to the next generation about the effects that their actions had on me and my family in an attempt to stop them from making the same mistakes. I’ve tried to combat the anger, their anger, with my empathy.”

Deep personal healing and learning These stories and experiences show how workshop participants were not only able to make their own personal peace with the past but enabled them to come back into local community life and support the peace process on the ground. This supports the propositions of Rogerian counselling that there is a profound link between your trauma story and three layers of listening – being heard, being understood and being acknowledged. When that story is not only heard within your own community but

140

Geoffrey Corry

acknowledged by significant others in the offending community, then personal dignity is restored. When victim/survivors and former combatants engage each other in safe surroundings, there is undoubtedly a ripple effect that flows into easing intercommunal and political tension. We know that their personal journeys generated a healing momentum through their subsequent leadership roles. Yet it must also be recognised that people took what they wanted from the overall programme and some withdrew once the workshops were no longer useful. Yes, some survivors felt ‘the space was not safe’ – and the facilitators respected that – but it must be affirmed that if the space was too safe, people would not be challenged enough to move out of their comfort zone to engage with each other and go that step further to meet ‘the other’. We also know that some came near to answering the ultimate question: what was the violence all about? The intergroup encounters gave the possibility of unpacking what happened, digesting the hurt experienced by themselves and their communities as well as mourning those who had died. It will take many more such encounters to dissolve the enmities and deconstruct the narratives that underpin the inter-communal violence.

References Aubertin, T. ‘I got shot through the head with an Armalite round’, Chapter 2 in Dawson, G., Dover, J and Hopkins, S. (2017) The Northern Ireland Troubles in Britain: Impacts, Engagements, Legacies and Memories, Manchester University Press. Berry, J. (2020). Una O’Higgins O’Malley Lecture in October 2020, Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation. www.glencree.ie Bowman, A (2017). ‘There’s no way out but through’, Chapter 19 in Dawson G., Dover J. & Hopkins S. The Northern Ireland Troubles in Britain: Impacts, Engagements, Legacies and Memories. (279–283), Manchester University Press,. Corry, G. (2013). Finding Meaning: Melting the Stone in Relational Disputes, Chapter 12 in LeBaron M., MacLeod C. & Acland A. (Eds), The Choreography of Resolution: Conflict, Movement and Neuroscience. American Bar Association. Corry, G. (2020). When the Steel Shutter Melts: the power of acknowledgement within a relational justice process, Chapter 14 in Terry S. (ed), Good Work in Troubled Times. Rowman & Littlefield. Corry, G. (2021). The Bottom-Down Approach to Making Peace with the Past, in the Glencree Journal 2021, Dealing with the Legacy of Conflict in Northern Ireland through Engagement and Dialogue. (77–91) Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation,. Dawson, G. (2007). Making peace with the Past: Memory, Trauma and the Irish Troubles. Manchester University Press. De Paor, J. (2014). LIVE: Let’s Involve the Victim’s Experience in Rafter E. (Ed), Deepening Reconciliation: Reflections on Glencree Peacebuilding. (pp. 115–129), Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation. De Vries J. & De Paor J. (2005). Healing and Reconciliation in the L.I.V.E. Program in Ireland. Peace & Change 30 (3), 329–358.

8 Making Peace with the Past

141

Donahoe, A. E., (2017). Peacebuilding through Women’s Community Development: Wee Women’s Work in Northern Ireland. Springer International Publishing. Fay, M-T., Morrissey, M., & Smyth, M. (1999). Northern Ireland’s Troubles: the human costs. Pluto Press. Finch, J. (1983). Married to the job: wives’ incorporation in men’s work. Allen & Unwin. Ganiel, G. & Yohanis, J. (2019). Considering Grace: Presbyterians and the Troubles. Merrion Press. Haass, R. and O’Sullivan M. (2013). Proposed agreement among the parties of the Northern Ireland Executive on Parades, Select Commemorations and Related Protests; Flags and Emblems; and Contending with the Past. Island Pamphlets 102 (2012). Towards a Shared Future 2: Confronting Sectarianism. Farset Community Think Tanks Project. Kilmurray, A., & McWilliams, M., (2011). Struggling for Peace: How Women in Northern Ireland Challenged the Status Quo. Solutions Journal, 2 (2). Little, A. & Verwoerd W. (2013). Journey through Conflict Trail Guide: Introduction. Trafford Publishing. Eames, R. & Bradley, D. (2009). Report of the Consultative Group on the Past. Commission appointed by the Northern Ireland Secretary of State www.cgpni.org McEvoy, K. & Shirlow, P. (2009). ‘Re-imagining DDR: Ex-combatants, leadership and moral agency in conflict transformation’. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480608100172 Sales, R. (1997). Women Divided: Gender, Religion and Politics in Northern Ireland. Routledge. Shirlow, P., Tonge J., McAuley J., & McGlynn C. (2010). Abandoning Historical Conflict? Former political prisoners and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Manchester University Press. Verwoerd, W. (2014). Working with Former Combatants & the Sustainable Peace Network in Rafter E. (Ed), Deepening Reconciliation: Reflections on Glencree Peacebuilding. (pp. 131–149) Glencree Centre for Reconciliation. White, I. (2003). Victim-Combatant Dialogue in Northern Ireland: A case study, in Bloomfield, D., Barnes, T., & Huyse, L. (Eds) Reconciliation after Violent Conflict – A Handbook. (pp. 89–96), IDEA,. http://www.idea.int/publications/reconciliation/upload/reconciliation_full.pdf

Part II: Track III processes and actions in the context of active political conflict

Helena Desivilya Syna

9 Track III initiatives in the context of Israel’s divided society and the protracted Israeli-Palestinian political conflict Abstract: The introductory chapter provides the specific context of Israel’s divided society. It sketches the chronology of pivotal events in the course of the persistent Israeli-Palestinian conflict while highlighting the perplexing and paradoxical situation of Jewish-Arab relations in view of this protracted political discord. It emphasizes the challenges and perplexities confronted by scholars, practitioners and activists engaging in Track III initiatives in the complex context of active political conflict and divided society. The chapter delineates the essential considerations potentially fostering transformation of relations through Track III actions in intricate real-life settings, such as workplaces, communities and public spaces. Keywords: divided society, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, joint spaces of encounter, real-life actions, track III

The second part of the book illuminates Track III initiatives embedded in Israel’s divided society entwined in active prolonged political conflict. It reflects upon in situ endeavours, of Israeli Jewish and Arab/Palestinian scholars, practitioners and social activists enacted in real life settings. These initiatives are aimed at transforming intergroup conflicts and actually building joint spaces of constructive encounters between Israeli Jewish and Arab/Palestinian citizens. The opening chapter outlines the specific context of Israel’s divided society. It sketches the history of the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict while highlighting the perplexing and paradoxical situation of Jewish-Arab relations in view of this protracted political discord. In order to position the upcoming chapters in the local context, a brief history of the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict is presented, pinpointing the major episodes which mark its evolution. The Israeli-Palestinian political conflict officially commences with the Balfour Declaration in 1917, conferring the establishment of a ‘national home’ for Jews in the Land of Israel. This affirmation instigated a fierce dispute between the two nations (Jews and Palestinians) over a territory hitherto labelled ‘Palestine’, peaking in the War of Independence in 1948, and the actual foundation of the State of Israel. Following the establishment of the new state, the status of the Arabs/Palestinians changed from a

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3481-6003 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-009

146

Helena Desivilya Syna

clear and well-positioned majority to a beaten minority, ruled by the Jews (Gabison & Abu-Raya, 1999). The prolonged armed conflict between Israel and its neighbours, affected the Jewish leadership’s attitudes towards the Arab citizens of Israel. The latter have been considered as a subversive group, undermining Israel’s security. A national security doctrine has formed the core social ethos of the State of Israel, developed in the course of national liberation struggle and nation building. It has been constantly fuelled by the Holocaust trauma, which enhanced the fear of annihilation, in turn feeding the security doctrine and the attempts of fostering national unity. As succinctly put by Muhlbauer (2001): “. . . Any digression from this dominant national security doctrine has been criticised for promoting internal factionalism and risking the nation’s well-being . . .” The following paramount events have to a large extent shaped the local landscape where scholars, practitioners and civil society activists engage in Track III endeavours (Desivilya Syna, 2020). – 13 September 1993 – Oslo I Accord (Declaration of Principles) between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority was signed in Washington DC. – 26 October 1994 – A peace treaty was signed between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan at the Wadi Araba Border Crossing in the south. – 25 February 1994 – The Cave of the Patriarchs massacre; Baruch Goldstein murdered twenty-nine Muslim worshipers. – 8 September 1995 – Oslo Accord II between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority was signed in Taba, Egypt. – 4 November 1995 – The assassination of Prime Minister of Israel Itzhak Rabin by Igal Amir. – 2000 – The end of the Peace Process following the failure of the Camp David Summit. – September 2000-February 2005 – The Second Intifada/Al Aqsa Intifada: a period of intensified Israeli-Palestinian violence, with 1000 casualties on the Israeli side, and 3000 on the Palestinian side. – 2005 – Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. – 2005–2013 – Continuing tensions and periodical eruptions of violence, concentrated in the Gaza Strip area, including Hamas and other militant Palestinian factions firing Qassam rockets and missiles on civilian Israeli towns and settlements in the vicinity, and Israeli counter military operations to halt the rocket fire (Operation Hot Winter, February 2008; Operation Cast Lead, December 2008; Operation Pillar of Defence, November 2012). International efforts were undertaken to mediate between Israel and Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which have been largely unsuccessful. – 2014-present – Israel-Gaza Conflict. Continuing escalation of violence, including Palestinian violent attacks and Israel Defence Forces operations (Operation Protective Edge), with sporadic international efforts to stop the violence (mainly Egyptian mediation between Israel and Hamas, with temporary success), and to resume negotiations and the peace process (unsuccessful).

9 Track III initiatives in the context of Israel’s divided society

147

The above chronology demonstrates the interlocking of violence with efforts to settle the protracted conflict. It is noteworthy that the past five years, has been characterized by a mounting intensity of violence, particularly in the Gaza Strip region, every so often moderated by ceasefire agreements mediated by Egypt. The most recent pivotal events, related to the protracted political conflict include both attempts at reconciliation demonstrated by the Abraham Accords as well as continuing tensions of Israel in the Gaza strip – the Operation Guardian of the Walls – and internal tensions within Israel termed the May Riots. The Abraham Accords comprise a sequence of treaties normalizing and formalizing diplomatic relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, facilitated by the U.S. Administration, which were attained in the course of five months – between August and December 2020 (the US State Department, 2020). Aside to the aforementioned benevolent developments, May 2021 marked a period of escalation in the protracted asymmetric Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It culminated in Operation Guardian of the Walls which led to the May Riots. The escalation process spread into Israel and manifested in violent clashes between Jewish and Arab/Palestinian citizens, mainly in the ‘mixed cities’: Jaffa, Lod, Ramle in the center of Israel and Acre, Haifa, Nof Hagalil (formerly Upper Nazareth) and Ma’alot Tarshiha in Northern Israel. The centrality of the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict has exacerbated for decades Israel’s complex divided society, saturated with tensions among different social groups. Israeli society comprises a national majority of Jewish immigrants and their descendants, and a minority of Arabs/Palestinians who continued to live in Israel after 1948 and their descendants. The Jewish majority includes five main splits: religious-secular, Ashkenazi (European)-Sephardic (Asian-African), veteransnewcomers, and doves (political left)-hawks (political right). The Arab minority also includes internal divisions: Sunni Muslims, different Christian sects, Druze, and Bedouin. The national minority confront inequality in contrast with the privileged status of the Jewish majority. As indicated earlier, the Jewish-Arab/Palestinian division has been the most pronounced owing to the prolonged Israeli-Palestinian discord (Desivilya Syna, 2020). The work of scholars, practitioners and activists at the Track III arena, embedded in the context of protracted asymmetric political conflict, deems reckoning the fundamental impact of social construction processes. The latter determine social agendas at the macro level, trickling into the meso and micro levels and interfere with intergroup interactions in daily life spaces of encounter, such as workplaces, academic institutions and communities (Desivilya Syna, 2020). Consequently, those engaged in Track III initiatives need to understand the intricacy, especially the paradoxical reality of intergroup contact in real-life settings and elucidating constructive modes of coping (Kristeva, 1991).

148

Helena Desivilya Syna

Fostering positive transformation of relations between ‘rival’ parties, in the context of precarious incremental residues of protracted political conflict, necessitates pooled resources, joint mobilization and shared actions of all stakeholders, directed at multiple levels (macro, meso and micro) and modalities of human experience (Bekerman, 2018; Dewulf et al., 2009; Dixon et al., 2012; Jones & Dovidio, 2018; Syna Desivilya, 2004). Such approaches encompass social and educational initiatives which aim at engendering a system-wide transformation of the ‘adversaries’ relations in real-life settings, that is fostering deep and constructive interactions between diverse employees, students, and community residents (Friedman, et al., 2018). Moreover, these ventures attempt to foster reflective practice among the diverse protagonists in workplaces, public spaces and shared communities and developing power asymmetry sensitivity (Desivilya & Rottman, 2012; Friedman, et al., 2019). Another important ingredient in conflict transformation in real-life settings constitutes building genuine partnerships, involving constant dialogue among the stakeholders – social entrepreneurs, facilitators, participants and local leadership (Desivilya & Palgi, 2011; Desivilya & Rottman, 2012). The multi-level and multi-modal approach of conflict transformation requires involvement of active third parties. This allows assisting the diverse parties to uncover the latent intricacy of confronting ‘otherness’ in organizations and communities engulfed by escalated and protracted discords. The third-party actions entail divulging elusive signs of delegitimization, discrimination, exclusion and silencing of voices and in parallel developing critical stance, building the capacity and skills to negotiate the terms of engagement, notably negotiating power-relations (Clair et al., 2012; Eden & Huxham, 2001). We invite the readers to join the Israeli scholars, practitioners and activists in the expedition portraying Track III endeavours and contemplations in the complex context of active and enduring political conflict.

References Bekerman, Z. (2018). Working towards peace through education: The case of Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 6 (1), 75–98. https://search-proquest-om.ez proxy.yvc.ac.il/docview/2056426456?accountid=27657 (accessed February 14, 2022). Clair, J.A, Humberd, B.K., Caruso, H.M. & Morgan Roberts, L. (2012). Marginal memberships: Psychological effects of identity ambiguity on professionals who are demographically different from the majority. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2041386611429041 Desivilya Syna, H. (2020). Diversity management in places and times of tensions: Engaging intergroup relations in a conflict-ridden society. Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-37723-6

9 Track III initiatives in the context of Israel’s divided society

149

Desivilya Syna, H. & Rottman, A. (2012). The role of power asymmetry sensitivity in Jewish Arab partnerships. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 30 (2): 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/ crq.21058 Desivilya, H. and Palgi, M. (2011). Building academics-practitioners partnership as means for generating usable knowledge. In H. Desivilya Syna and M. Palgi (eds.). The paradox in partnership: The role of conflict in partnership building. (pp. 128–159). Bentham Science e-Books. http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/content.php?9781608052110 Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R. & van Woerkum, C. (2009). Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A metaparadigmatic perspective. Human Relations, 62(2), 155–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726708100356 Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Relational inequality, collective action, and social change revisited. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001550 Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (2001). The Negotiation of purpose in multi-organizational collaborative groups. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/14676486.00241 Friedman, V.J., Simonovich, J., Bitar, N., Sykes, I., Aboud-Armali. O., Arieli, D., Hadad, L., Rothman, J., Shdema, I. & Dar, M. (2019). Self-in-field action research in natural spaces of encounter: inclusion, learning, and organizational change. Academy of Management Proceedings.2019(1), 17214. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.17214abstract Friedman, V., Arieli, D. & Abboud-Armaly, O. (2018). Facilitating emotional reappraisal in conflict transformation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 35(4),351–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/ crq.21210 Gabison, R. & Abu-Raya, A. (1999). The Jewish-Arab rift in Israel: Characteristics and challenges. The Israel Democracy Institute, (Hebrew). Jones, J. M. & Dovidio, J. F. (2018). Change, challenge, and prospects for a diversity paradigm in social psychology. Social Issues and Policy Review, 12 (1), 7–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/ sipr.12039 Kriesberg, L. (1998). Coexistence and the reconciliation of communal conflicts. In E. Weiner (Ed.), The handbook of interethnic coexistence (pp. 182–198). Continuum Press. Kristeva, J. (1991). Strangers to ourselves? Columbia University Press. Muhlbauer, V. (2001). Israeli women and the peace movements. Peace Review, 13(2), 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402650120060508 Syna Desivilya, H. (2004). Promoting coexistence by means of conflict education: The MACBE model. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (2), pp. 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.00224537.2004.00115.x The US State Department (2020) https://www.state.gov/the-abraham-accords/ (accessed February 14, 2022).

Reuven Gal

10 The long-term impact of a transformative learning-experience of rival co-existence activists Abstract: This chapter describes a unique experience shared during a trip to Northern Ireland (N-I), at the heights of ‘The Troubles’ period, by a mixed group of Israeli Jewish and Palestinians co-existence activists. During the 10-days trip, the group members had numerous meetings with representatives of the main rival groups, investigated their different narratives and perspectives and watched various attempts for the conflict resolution. The intensive visit also provided a unique opportunity for the participants to reflect upon their own case. Upon returning home, the group members conducted several meetings, attempting to establish a continuity to the learning experience and examine parallel applications. The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate the importance of a transformative experience and a vicarious learning in the process of developing as a co-existence activist. The paper includes reports from several of these Israeli activists, twenty-five years after their initial exposure to the N-I experience. Keywords: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Northern Ireland, N-I, transformative experience

Introduction During the last century the world had seen many different conflicts, between nations, between ethnic groups within nations, between fractions of former states and so on. Striving for a final resolution of a conflict is, obviously, the goal of most rival nations and their leaders. However, moving into peacebuilding process – and ending successfully protracted conflicts – require multifaceted efforts and usually incorporate a multitude of partners, such as political leaders (on both sides), mediators, international bodies and civil society organizations (Fitzduff and Church, 2004). Nonetheless, the role of grassroots activists in this kind of process is of primary importance (Hart, 2001; Mitchell and Hancock, 2012). The involvement of multiple ‘stockholders’ in conflict resolution and peacebuilding processes often results in erratic trajectories of the process, including top-down and bottom-up initiatives, inside and outside pressures and disputing narratives (Mac Ginty and Firchow, 2016). Undoubtedly, it is the dispute about the different narratives that augments the disagreements about facts and ‘true’ history. Apparently, clinging to narratives, as well as a sense of discrimination, are components that need https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-010

152

Reuven Gal

to be recognized on the road to peace agreements. According to Ricigliano, social transformations are pertinent to any peace process no less than political steps and structural changes (Ricigliano, 2004). Northern Ireland and Israel are two countries which have been struggling for many years with such a protracted conflict. While the former has already exited the deadlock and the violent phase of the conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict still seems remote from an end. Although all Israeli Governments, throughout the years, have included in their Basic Guidelines of Government Policy a clause stating its “striving for peace agreement with the Palestinian people” (see, for example, Levush, 2013, p. 5), the actual fact is that none of the Israeli Governments over the last decades (since the ‘Oslo Accords’ in 1993–1995) had initiated any such move. On the non-governmental side, however, it is the grassroots NGO’s dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that have flourished over the years in Israel. A quick examination in the relevant Wikipedia site reveals close to 50 different NGO’s, fully active in various areas: Joint economic efforts, educational efforts, Jewish-Muslim dialogues, co-existence1 groups, political activists, cultural and scientific works and more (Arab-Israeli Peace Projects, 2020). These NGO’s have not yet brought a peace resolution to the protracted conflict in the Middle-East. They do, however, contribute to narrowing the gaps between the adversary groups; they legitimate the mutual attending to each other’s narratives; and occasionally, they might pave the road for ‘Track II diplomacy’ (or ‘backchannel diplomacy’) – as indeed happened in the ‘Oslo Accords’ case (Handelman, 2011). This chapter describes a unique experience of a mixed (Israeli Jews and Palestinians) group of such co-existence activists. Back in 1995, this group went onto a 10 days exploration trip to Northern Ireland, during ‘The Troubles’ period. Although twenty-five years ago, the impact of this trip is still alive, as will be illustrated henceforth. Following a brief review of the situation in N-I at the time of the visit, the chapter evaluates the cognitive and emotional experiences shared by the group members during the visit. It then describes the long-run sequel of those experiences, both at the group level, as well as at the individual’s. As part of the preparation to writing this chapter, an attempt was made to detect the group members and explore their present activities. The ones identified (three quarters out of all the living members) were asked to respond to a short questionnaire comprised of several open-ended questions regarding their past recollections as well as their present engagements in the area of co-existence and peace-seeking. Their responses are dotted throughout the following pages.

 Though the term ‘co-existence’ is outdated nowadays (commonly replaced by ‘shared society’), it is applied in this paper, as it was frequently used at the time this trip took place.

10 The long-term impact of a transformative learning-experience

153

The Trip In May 1995, three years before the ‘Good Friday Agreement’, an Israeli delegation travelled to Northern Ireland (N-I), on a vicarious-learning and fact-finding trip. Among the travelers were sixteen Israeli co-existence activists and peace-advocates – educators, researchers, NGOs’ members – equally split in number between Jewish and Palestinian (both Muslim and Christian) origins.2 The explicit goal of the trip was to provide the Israeli participants first-hand information about the protracted conflict in N-I, along with an opportunity to get familiar with a sample of projects and activities aimed at managing, hopefully solving, this conflict. ‘The [co-existence] projects in Northern Ireland and in Israel are mirror images of each other, which stress the universal application of our work’, stated Alan Slifka at the onset of the journey. Because of this close resemblance it was also anticipated that the Israeli visitors will be able to achieve greater insight into the issues of Jewish-Arab coexistence.

The circumstances surrounding the visit A detailed description of the N-I conflict is provided in the first part of the current book. For the purpose of this chapter, suffice it to say, that at the time of the Israelis’ visit in May 1995 the conflict has not yet been resolved; there was a lull in the killings, but the threat of renewed violence was very apparent and the paramilitary groups were still on the alert. However, during their visit the Israeli delegates could witness ripples of peace circulating over many communities and, evidently, it became a unique opportunity to learn how peace zones can be widened. Indeed, the ‘Good Friday Agreement’ in 1998 was a remarkable accomplishment, enabled after decades of painstaking work by many players, including governments, international mediators and various NGO groups. Among the latter, stood out many women’s groups, particularly the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition (NIWC). During the visit, the Israeli delegates had several opportunities to meet and conduct long discussions with some remarkable women, including a few who were activists in the NIWC. Said A.Gh. [an Arab, male, group member]: I was especially struck by the significant role of women in fostering Protestant-Catholic coexistence. In fact, I concluded that women are more active than men in bringing a solution to this conflict. R.D. [an Arab, female member] and J. M. [ Jewish, female] also reiterated this as their deepest recollection.

 The full delegation comprised 20 individuals, among them Mr. Alan B. Slifka, President and cofounder of The Abraham Fund (which sponsored the trip); Dr. Eugene Weiner, co-founder of The Abraham Fund; Dr. Carol Rittner R.S.M., who represented the Center for Creative Communications, the co-coordinator of this fact-finding trip; two guest-researchers; and the undersigned.

154

Reuven Gal

Visit highlights The visit centered in the Londonderry County, and especially in the city of Londonderry,3 though it included also a day trip to Belfast, as well as a few other short trips in nearby vicinities. While in Derry, the Israeli delegates met with the mayor of Derry and several members of the City Council. The group visited a museum dedicated to the dual-narrative history of the N-I conflict and listened to lengthy reviews about the conflict from both Catholic and Protestant local guides. The visit at the Derry museum is S.D.’s deepest recall: I was so impressed by the ability to tell the story from two different, frequently opposite, perspectives – yet putting them under the same roof – and the ceiling did not collapse [. . .] Similarly, A.Gh. recalls: It was very impressive to observe at the museum (and also in some of the schools we’ve visited) how each side had its distinct narrative, while at the same time they shared also common subjects.

In addition, they had a guided tour at the old city walls and at the Apprentice Boys Memorial Hall, a center of a conservative Protestant fraternity. One day was dedicated to visit Corrymeela, on the northern coast of N-I (about 70 km from Derry) – a co-existence and reconciliation organization which also serves as an open community for both volunteers and professionals engaging in the dynamics of conflict, fracture, scapegoating and violence, both in N-I as well as globally. A single-day tour to Belfast revealed to the visitors a picture somewhat different than the one in Londonderry. Certain parts of the city had Protestant and Catholic living in such proximity that the streets were physically divided by a wall, absurdly called the Peace Line. Yet, it could still be dangerous to be in the neighborhoods of the other side. Although there were some integrated schools, many children attended separate schools and a lot of inhabitants had never spoken to Protestants or Catholics, respectively. J.M.’s most distinct memory from that visit is the following: We were at the home of one of the Protestant activists; he had a son of about thirteen. We asked him what he thought of Catholics, and to our great surprise he answered: ‘I don’t really know, I’ve never met on’.

In contrast, A.G. recalls conversations with several people in Belfast who firmly advocated the need to exit the status quo, to abolish the street walls, to avoid the ‘either or’ option and replace it with another alternative. During their short tour in the city, the Israeli delegates visited some schools and community centers. In addition, they met with members of the Belfast City Council and representatives from the Secretariat of the Peace and Reconciliation Forum and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as additional number of prominent government and municipal leaders.

 Protestants call it Londonderry; Catholics use the name Derry. The two names are henceforth used interchangeably.

10 The long-term impact of a transformative learning-experience

155

M.F., one of the delegate participants, who at the time served as the only Israeli-Palestinian member in the City Council of his hometown in Israel, attested: I was particularly impressed by the government’s investment in the field of coexistence in N-I.

Among the non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), the participants had a chance to meet and have open discussions with several such groups, from each of the rival sides, as well as bi-partisan NGO’s, dedicated to co-existence activities. The group also had the honor of meeting with Mrs. Mary Robinson, then President of the Republic of Ireland, at her official residence in Dublin.

A Learning Experience During the weeklong visit (supplemented by subsequent in-depth readings of relevant literature), the history of the conflict in N-I became gradually unfolded to the Israeli visitors, most of whom had been quite unfamiliar with its roots and subsequences. Clearly, the main debate between the two sides was related to the future constitutional status of N-I: Most of the Catholics wanted to leave the United Kingdom and join the Republic of Ireland; most of the Protestants wished N-I to remain within the United Kingdom (Miller, 1998; Coulter, 1999). It became also clear that these conflicting aspirations stemmed from deep historical roots, colored by powerful ethnic and nationalistic backdrops (Clayton,2014; Heath, Breen and Whelan, 1999). Obviously, all these characteristics resonated quickly with the delegates’ – both Jews and Palestinians– own selves. There was one additional aspect characterizing the N-I conflict that struck the Israeli visitors even more. Many of the Catholic representatives they met believed that there had been systematic discrimination against them since the inception of the state in 1921. The delegation members learned from their local guides in Derry, that when Protestants took power in Northern Ireland, they established what was essentially a Protestant state, which effectively discriminated against Catholics in areas such as housing, jobs, and political representation. This sense of discrimination stayed with the Catholic population in N-I throughout the passing decades. In fact, their perceptions were confirmed by the findings of the Cameron Commission (Ireland, 1969), which concluded that a sense of injustice and discrimination had been a major contributory factor in engendering the violence that erupted in 1969 (‘The Troubles’). Later studies reconfirmed this conclusion (e.g. Rose, 1976). It is not surprising, then, that from the very beginning of the excursions the Palestinian members of the Israeli group felt stronger identification with the Catholics’ side of the conflict. The fact that a parallel effect did not spontaneously occur among the other half of the delegates can be attributed to both the sympathetic (and non-discriminative!) disposition revealed by most of the Protestant representatives

156

Reuven Gal

who met the group, as well as to the common background of all the Israelis as coexistence activists. G.K. [A Christian-Arab member of the group, a university professor]: I felt horror during our visit at the ‘Orange Order’s Castel’ (i.e. the Apprentice Boys Memorial Hall), and some of the things I heard there sounded to me insane and fanatic, not leaving any room for co-existence option.

Partisanship notwithstanding, the range of the sights, meetings and discussions that the Israeli scholars were exposed to, along with the moving reactions that these encounters evoked in most of them, developed into an intensive learning experience: they could feel, clearly, the whole range of emotions characterizing bloody conflicts – fears and anxieties, hatred and zealousness, the craving for vengeance and the dread of compromise. But they also learned from their well-seasoned hosts that the source of those powerful emotions lied in the collective memories, in pasttraumas, in the history – or, rather, the narratives chosen by each side to portray the history, ‘their history’. In addition to the guided tours and educated lectures, the Israeli delegates had many opportunities to observe on-going activities, to watch kindergarten teachers acting toward their mixed (Catholic-Protestant) preschoolers; teachers conducting classes at co-partisan schools; group facilitators and experts in conflict-resolution training juvenile volunteers and so forth. S.D.: I remember the insight I first arrived at (and later became one of the themes in my writings) during the visit: That children are not necessarily the right ‘targets’ for co-existence efforts! Why should we expect them to practice what we, the elders, managed only to preach? I was captivated by what I heard from one of the local pedagogues we spoke to: ‘The kids’, he said, ‘would follow us’. The penny dropped then.

Thus, unobtrusively, a process of vicarious learning took place during this intensive tour. Vicarious learning, according to experts, occurs when learners see and/or hear a learning situation (i.e., an observed learner in an instructional situation) for which they are not the addressees and do not interact with the observed learner nor the instruction (Craig et al., 2006; Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 2014). Indeed, in those cases where the Israelis observed inactively educational sessions conducted by their N-I equals, the impact was frequently super-intense. A significant aspect of the learning experience had to do with a whole range of new concepts and terms displayed to the Israeli activists by their N-I counterparts: post-nationalism (as an echo to the disillusionment from achieving a total fulfilment of each side’s dream); the misleading conceptual triangle Victims-Persecutors -Rescuers; the potential deception of education in the service of fortifying patriotism; self-identity as a precondition to co-existence; the importance of overcoming the fear (of the ‘other’) as a prerequisite to crystalizing each side’s own identity.

10 The long-term impact of a transformative learning-experience

157

A.Gh.: One of the strongest recollections I have is the clarity that each side demonstrated in defining exactly what they wanted, what were their respective goals, what was each group’s vision. There was also a clear understanding that before reaching the negotiation as to how we’ll live together, each side must clearly define its own identity.

During an intensive workshop at Corrymeela, the Israelis were introduced to the methods and concepts comprising the basic ‘tool-box’ used by the local activists: neutralized venues; single-identity work; community work; cross-community work; overcoming borders of the mind; to grow in each other’s culture; the upper-side of diversity; the lower-side of empathy; area-based partnerships; and more. M.F.: I was especially interested in the emphasis given in the mixed-schooling system on ‘single identify work’, concentrating on developing and strengthening the disenfranchised Catholic sector as a first step to establishing grounds for understanding between the two communities. M.F. also noted the joint economic development projects, such as a shopping center run by both Protestants and Catholics.

Subsequently, the revelations the visitors experienced during their daily tours became a mirror for self-reflections at night: At the end of each of the excursion days, the Israeli delegates used to convene together in one of the rooms of their hotel, and dive into hours-long discussions about their own, Jewish-Arab conflict. Being engulfed during the day with the painful sights and stories of the N-I struggle, opened at night the hearts and minds of the Israelis to reflect upon their own situation. These discussions became an enriching experience that was simultaneously painful and restorative. Each of the sixteen activists felt that the impressions of the visit touched upon their personal, very particular, sores; but in the process they also realized that they were actually contaminated by a universal, man-made, disease. A.G.: I came out of this experience with enormous skepticism, yet with a broad theoretical optimism. And S.D. disclosed his greatest conclusion: You must be determined. We lack that. I mean, the deep conviction that it is the sole obligation of our generation to reach a solution and to do everything in our capacity – but everything! – for that goal.

A dramatic incident, which happened in Derry just a few weeks before the group’s arrival, was told to the group members by a local eyewitness. A young Catholic lad, member of the militant IRA group, was killed while charging a lethal attack on a police station building in the center of the city. Several innocent civilians, mostly young Protestants, were also killed in this incident. A week later, the mourning parents of one of those civilians nocked on the neighboring door of the IRA lad’s home, offering the bereaved Catholic parents a freshly-baked apple pie, with an attached note: “Your child was killed while seeking killing our child. Now we are both grieving families. Let us pray together that in the near future our children will subsist safely and peacefully in this street of ours”.

158

Reuven Gal

It turned out that these parents, freshly grappled with horrible grief, were seasoned activists in one of Belfast’s grassroots peace movements. This local event, the group members learned, had an initial impact on the forthcoming negotiations that consequently led to the ‘Good Friday Agreement’. It was, unintentionally, a validation of the thesis that localized perceptions of the conflict’s roots are not only articulated in different ways than the common political narratives but also raise different issues and alternative solutions (Mac Ginty & Firchow, 2016). This story evoked emotive discussions among the group members. Where does hatred end and compassion prevail? Is it the loss of a child that enables empathy among formerly rival parents? And why for others, the loss of their dearest will result exactly in the opposite direction, seeking revenge? The Israeli peace activists did not find in Londonderry definite answers to these questions. But they persisted looking for ones.

Back in Israel – Group Effort Already in N-I, towards the end of their journey, the group came jointly to a decision to resume their meetings after returning back home. The impact of the visit was obvious, but the ramifications were blurry. With the original objectives of the trip in the participants’ minds, many questions still came up: Are the two cases similar at all? To what extent is the N-I conflict relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian case? What lessons learned there can be applied here? And above all – how can this group of peers pursue the learning experience they had in N-I and practice it in Israel? About three months later, the group rejoined. The venue was the Carmel Institute for Social Studies,4 a not-for-profit research center in Zichron Ya’akov, a small, picturesque town in northern Israel. The joint idea was to conduct several prescheduled meetings, initially planned for one year. In practice, the meetings endured two years, throughout 1996–1997. Though not always full turnout, the initial commitment in the peer group was quite undivided. At a certain point, the group reached a decision to engage an expert in conflictresolution and group-conciliation techniques.5 Under her guidance, the group members analyzed current tendencies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and practiced group methods for coexistence enhancement. Several members utilized these methods within their on-going activities and reported back to the group. Others attempted to start new projects, based on the learned experience from N-I, complemented by the skills they have acquired at home. Still others initiated some field research projects.

 At the time, the author (R.G.) served as the director of the Carmel Institute. Professor Helena Syna Desivilya, the Co-Editor of this volume, served as a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute.  The late Mrs. Haviva Bar was a renowned authority in this area, working especially with Jewish and Palestinian youth. See: Bargal & Bar, 2010.

10 The long-term impact of a transformative learning-experience

159

S.D.: I have hardly known most of the delegation members, before. Yet the shared experience we had in N-I nourished a lot of my subsequent work. It also created, in addition to friendship relations, much collaborations, with at least half of the members.

But overall, the ‘Zichron Ya’akov meetings’ (as they were fondly labeled) did not evolve into a major, concentrated, project. ‘Veterans’ of the ‘Zichron Ya’akov meetings’ varied in their appraisals, 25 years later, as to why those meetings did not sustain. S.D.: Sustainable outputs can only result from protracted efforts within a binding framework; had the Foundation (The Abraham Fund; R.G.) guaranteed sources for an ongoing framework – this project would have sustained.

A.Gh. and R.D. concurred that the group did not share clear objectives, nor distinct missions. In addition, the political situation in Israel during the second half of the 90’s became very heated, stirred by repeated lethal attacks inflicted by Palestinian terror groups and counteracted by Israeli military fierce retaliations. J. M.: We once had a very heated discussion in the group about terrorists, and whether we could be empathic to their motives; And G. K. added: The common feeling was that under the circumstance there was no chance for any mutual endorsement, or a shared mission.

Personal sequel While the group efforts did not yield substantial outcomes, at the individual level it seems that the N-I experience generated some significant consequences. Admittedly, some engagement with Jewish-Arab interrelations characterized all the delegation members even before the N-I tour; but for most of them the 1995 journey became a turning point, preoccupying them in the succeeding years in intense coexistence activities. Thus, two Palestinian female group-members, who never hid their deep commitment to equal rights and peace-making calls, have been elected in the following years as Kensett (Israeli Parliament) Members. Both have been highly involved in aspects related to Arab-Jews relationships. While one, sadly, had passed away a few years ago, the other is a full-steam active K-M to this day. Two male group-participants, a Palestinian and a Jew, served (one since 1993, the other elected in 1998) as Co-Directors of Sikkuy – the largest Israeli NGO devoted to implementing full equality on all levels between the Arab Palestinian and Jewish citizens of Israel. Presently, one of them (the Palestinian scholar) pursued academic career, teaching and studying related issues (e.g. Ganim, 2010), while still involved in initiating empowerment programs for Palestinians in Israel; His Jewish partner has been pursuing throughout the years his commitment to the advancement of a joint (Jewish-Arab) civil society in Israel, through education and community work (e.g. Dichter and Abu-Asba, 2006; Dichter, 2014).

160

Reuven Gal

Other group members took similar courses: One of the women, being a Kibbutz member, became involved in joint cultural and educational activities aimed at bringing together the mixed population in her region. Another female member, a pedagogue by profession, offered consultation to the YMCA’s bilingual Peace Preschool in Jerusalem and subsequently served also as the Director of Yad BeYad. Two Palestinian group-members, who had served at the time as directors of JewishArab community centers in two different mixed towns (Ramla and Jaffa), upgraded their centers, respectively, upon returning from the N-I trip, inspired by their learning experience there. Another participant, a Druze, founded the Durub Association, an NGO dedicated to the development of civil and professional leadership in the Palestinian society in Israel. Shortly afterwards, he was invited to serve on a steering committee at the Ministry of Education, addressing the issue of peace education. Another Druze colleague, who at the time of the trip was in the middle of his doctoral studies, prospered afterward as a renowned scholar in the field of political democratization and civil liberalization, as well as in exploring the roots of the IsraeliPalestinian Conflict (e.g. Jamal, 2011; 2020). He is currently the Chair of the Walter Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence through Education, at Tel Aviv University, and fully absorbed in the subject. Another Palestinian member, currently a Professor Emeritus, served in the years immediately after returning back from the trip as the Chair of the Advisory Committee to the Minister of Education on the subject of Arabic Education. He was also involved in a UNESCO Chair of Intercultural and Interreligious Dialogue Studies established in 2000 at the University of Haifa. R.D.: Since the N-I trip (and also before) and throughout the following two decades I was constantly and intensively involved in civil-society organizations dedicated to Israeli-Palestinian relations and peace-making efforts. While in the last five years I have moved into private business (owning and managing a Middle-Eastern food restaurant), I still have not ceased my interest in the co-existence field. I remained a ‘political animal’; I simply cannot be aloof.

Clearly, then, almost all the 1995 delegation members not only continued but further intensified and expanded their involvement in the co-existence and conflictmanagement field, in the passing years. On a personal note, following the N-I experience, the present author became deeply involved in another ethnic conflict in Europe – the one that took place during the mid-90’s between the former-Yugoslavia states (Gal, 1997; Syna Desivilya and Gal, 2003). In parallel, he has not ceased his engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. In addition to active participation in various related NGO’s, he also produced two weighty reports on the subject (Gal, 2006; 2007). In 2002, he ventured to expand the academic comfortable zone he had enjoyed thus far and took upon himself several governmental positions, at high levels, enabling him to influence directly forms of youth coexistence and partially transform the status quo of the Palestinian minority in Israel.

10 The long-term impact of a transformative learning-experience

161

Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to demonstrate the impact of a transformative learningexperience through a mirroring encounter that occurred during a relatively short trip, on a group of co-existence activists. Indeed, 25 years later, it was concurred by most of the group’s members that the educational trip to Northern Ireland in which they took part in 1995 was a highly influential happening: J.M.: It was a great trip; we met some very interesting people and learnt a lot. The experience was extremely relevant to our activities in Israel. A.Gh.: I believe this journey became one of the triggers that drove me initiate the formulation of the ‘The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel’ document. (The National Committee, 2006) A.G.: I am currently working on my new (edited) book about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. It will comprise six Palestinian and six Jewish contributors. R.D.: One of my greatest sources of relief and cause for optimism is to look back to that horrible and deadly conflict [in N-I] and realize that it is almost nonexistent now. S.D.: My greatest lesson was that we should transform this engagement from a vocation to a profession. O.A.: My lessons – we should work together; our children should study together; we should celebrate common holidays; we should invite each other to our homes.

There were several components in that trip which made it such a powerful and transformative experience. First, the composition of the group: a mixed team, equally split in number between Jewish and Arabic origins. While the gender split was not parallel equal (there were six women and ten men in the group), it may be safely argued that the women’s superb quality compensated for their inferior quantity. Second, all the members of the delegation had prior interest (and some, also active engagement) in the area of co-existence and peacebuilding. Third, the proximate similarities between the two cases, the N-I protracted conflict and the Israeli one. Fourth, the opportunities given to the delegate members to combine observing and learning about the N-I case along with reflecting on their own feelings, understandings and insights. Fifth, the learning process was not limited to frontal lectures and educated presentations; rather, it involved a lot of vicarious-learning instances, in the forms of live demonstrations, mutual sharing, discussions and personal revealing. The role of grassroots activists in promoting peace-making efforts and conflict resolution is presently well recognized and documented (Hart, 2001; Mitchell and Hancock, 2012). However, the way these activists form and develop their perspectives is not frequently studied. Nor is the method of learning-from-others through

162

Reuven Gal

vicarious learning widely used. This chapter provides a particular example, based on a personal – and collective – experience.

References Arab-Israeli Peace Projects (2020). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_peace_ projects (accessed May 13, 2020) Bargal, D., & Bar, H. (1992). A Lewinian approach to intergroup workshops for Arab‐Palestinian and Jewish youth. Journal of Social Issues, 48(2), 139–154. Clayton, P. (2014). Religion, ethnicity and colonialism as explanations of the Northern Ireland conflict. Rethinking Northern Ireland: Culture, Ideology and Colonialism, 40–54. Coulter, C. (1999). Contemporary Northern Irish Society: An Introduction. Pluto Press. Craig, S. D., Sullins, J. Witherspoon, A. & Gholson, B. (2006). The Deep-Level-Reasoning-Question effect: The role of dialogue and Deep-Level-Reasoning Questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24:4, 565–591. 10.1207/s1532690xci2404_4 Dichter, S. (2014). On Tensions and Good Intentions: A framework for Jewish-Arab common life in Israel. Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House. [In Hebrew]. Dichter, S. and Abu-Asba, K. (2006). Two peoples and one civil society – Indeed? In: Edy Kaufman, Walid Salem and Juliette Verhoeven (Eds.): Bridging the Divide: Peace Building in the IsraeliPalestinian Conflict, pp. 171–190. Lynne Riener publishers. Fitzduff, M. and Church, C. (Eds), (2004). NGOs at the table: Strategies for influencing policies in areas of conflict.Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, M. Gal, R. (1997). Colleagues in distress: A personal perspective. In: Dean Ajdukovic’ (Ed.), Trauma recover training: Lessons learned. Society for Psychological Assistance. Gal, R. (2006). Enhancing coexistence through multiple channels of influence: A strategic scheme to change the quality of Arab-Jewish relationships in Israel. Special Report submitted to the Alan B. Slifka Foundation, May 2006. Gal, R. (2007). The perceived subject of rights and duties of Israeli-Arab citizens in light of the ‘National Civic Service’ perspective. Position Paper, Harold Hartog School of Government and Policy, Tel-Aviv University, October 2007. (In Hebrew). Ganim, A. (2010). Palestinian politics after Arafat: A failed national movement. Indiana University Press. Handelman, S. (2011). Conflict and peacemaking in Israel-Palestine: Theory and application (Vol. 34). Routledge. Hart, S. M. (2001). Cultural dilemmas of progressive politics: Styles of Engagement among Grassroots Activists. University of Chicago Press. Heath, A. F., Breen, R. and Whelan, C.T. (Eds.) (1999). Ireland North and South: Perspectives from Social Science. Oxford University Press. Ireland, D. I. N. (1969). Report Of the commission appointed by the governor of Northern Ireland (Cameron Report) Cmd. 532.Belfast: HMSO, 1921–69. https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/hmso/ca meron.htm (accessed February 15, 2022) Jamal, A. (2011).Arab minority nationalism in Israel: The politics of indigeneity. Routledge. Jamal, A. (2020) The creative imagination of juxtaposing national traumas: The Holocaust and the Nakba. Journal of Genocide Research, 22 (1), 166–172. 10.1080/14623528.2019.1670390

10 The long-term impact of a transformative learning-experience

163

Levush, R (2013) Israel: 2013 government composition and coalition agreements. The Law Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/israel-govenment-comp-agreements/il-govcomp-2013.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). Mac Ginty, R. and Firchow, P. (2016). Top-down and bottom-up narratives of peace and conflict. Politics, 36 (3), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395715622967 Miller, D. (Ed.) (1998). Rethinking Northern Ireland: culture, ideology and colonialism. London: Longman. Mitchell, C. R., & Hancock, L. E. (Eds.). (2012). Local peacebuilding and national peace: Interaction between grassroots and elite processes. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Ricigliano, R. (2004). The chaordic peace process. Journal for the Study of Peace and Conflict, (2003–2004): 1–11. Rose, R. (1976). Northern Ireland: a time of choice.Springer. Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2014). Social learning and cognition. Academic Press. Syna Desivilya, H. and Gal, R. (2003). Theory-based training in constructive conflict for trauma relief personnel: The case of Croatia and Bosnia. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 21, (2), 155–167. The National Committee for the Heads of Arab Local Authorities in Israel (2006). The future vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel.Nazareth, Israel. https://www.adalah.org/uploads/oldfiles/ newsletter/eng/dec06/tasawor-mostaqbali.pdf (accessed February 15, 2022)

Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar

11 Developing Spaces for Dialogue in a Complex and Diverse Academic Environment: A Critical-Humanistic Organizational Approach Abstract: As part of the Israeli Hope in Academia program, a group of junior and senior staff members at Emek Yezreel Academic College (YVC) developed a unique work model for cultivating knowledge and skills for working in a diverse social environment in academia. The group’s work took the form of a cooperative action study based on partnership, a flattening of hierarchy, and knowledge production within the group through a process of reflection. The basic model was one of critical social work in which existing knowledge was reflectively analyzed and action was performed and subjected to additional reflective analysis, increasing the precision of the subsequent action. When contemplating the process we underwent, we recognized significant correspondence between it and Theory U, from the field of organizational consulting. In this article, we discuss the main aspects of this theory and demonstrate its stages in an account of our work for the Israeli Hope in Academia project, as implemented at YVC. Keywords: partnership, critical social work, academic staff, diversity

Israeli Hope at YVC College The goal of this chapter is to contribute to the literature on ‘grass root’ efforts directed to improving intergroup relations by focusing on a specific case study: a collaboration of academic staff members from various departments, positions, and ranks, aimed at changing the attitude towards diversity and conflict in their organization. This case study took place in a particularly divided: Israel. In order to describe and analyze this case study we employ the U theory (Scharmer, 2007). We chose U theory since this model is based on the synthesis of action and theory, and is particularly relevant for discussing cases where a group of activists wishes to promote a radical and fundamental change in an existing structure (Scharmer, 2007; 2009). The U theory emphasizes the importance of giving space and importance to all voices of all participants since it aspires to create the involvement of diverse groups in a society. The motivation to give voice and to listen to diverse messages and to involve diverse people emerges from the perception that the voices of other people, is a source of knowledge that can make the action more accurate when https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-011

166

Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar

working with people who experience social exclusion aiming at their social inclusion (see Sirolli, 1999). In June 2015, one year into his term as president of the state of Israel, Reuven Rivlin delivered what came to be known as the ‘Tribes Speech’ which explained how demographic processes have created a new Israeli order consisting of four main tribes characterized by a growing sense of animosity among them – the secular, the religious, the ultraorthodox, and the Arabs. In his speech, President Rivlin described the situation as “a reality with far-reaching consequences for our national strength.” According to Rivlin, if we truly want to deal with the significance of the ‘new Israeli order,’ then we must bravely face the issue, and ask ourselves some tough questions. Are we, the members of the Zionist population, able to accept the fact that two significant groups, a half of the future population of Israel, do not define themselves as Zionists? (President’s Speech, 2016)

It was this speech that prompted the establishment of the Israeli Hope in Academia project, a joint project of the President’s Residence and the Higher Council of Education’s Planning and Budgeting Committee (PBC). The aim of the project is to promote a discourse of partnership and diversity on academic campuses across Israel. The initiative has been joined by a number of institutions, including YVC. During the 2017–2018 academic year, a new member (one of the authors) joined the college staff: a campus supervisor of the Israeli Hope in Academia program. Through the projects she developed and promoted in different areas, she sought the optimal means of implementing the program, which the PBC classified as cultural competence ‘training’ for college academic staff and administrators. This chapter offers an account of the program’s process of development and initial assimilation, and its shift from ‘training in cultural competence’ to ‘peer learning regarding work in diverse and complex environments’.

The Learning Process: What was done with whom? This chapter focuses on the formation of a leading core team (hereinafter, ‘core team’ or ‘team’) consisting of members of the academic and administrative staff who assumed the task of planning and facilitating learning sessions for members of the college staff and formulating the main insights that emerged from the process. The core team was made up of approximately 15 women and men, a third of whom were academic staff members in early stages of their careers, and another third of whom were members of the college’s administrative staff. The team consisted of Arabs and Jews, secular individuals and people with a connection to religion, native-born Israelis and immigrants, and residents of both central Israel and the periphery. The core team took upon itself to plan the learning sessions and their content, as well as to facilitate

11 Developing Spaces for Dialogue in a Complex and Diverse Academic Environment

167

the sessions in alternating pairs. The major decision was to approach administrative and academic departments and to offer each to take part in a series of three learning sessions. Over the course of the year, the core team held seven meetings devoted to development and construction and conducted vibrant discussions via email. The members of the core team facilitated 18 learning sessions (developed for groups with similar characteristics) for the staffs of 11 administrative departments, which were attended by a total of 140 administrative staff members. Toward the end of the year, two learning sessions were held for members of the academic staff in which a total of approximately 30 academic staff members from two academic departments took part. Learning sessions were also held for approximately 70 examiners (temporary agency workers). The process was accompanied by comprehensive research that included documentation of the development sessions of the core team, documentation of the learning group sessions conducted for the administrative units and the academic departments, and the written recording of reflections by members of the core team following each learning group they facilitated. We regard the process described here as unique for four major reasons: – The program for the learning sessions was based on the findings of a previous study that mapped the needs of different departments on campus (Desivilya, Yassour-Borochowich, Buknik, Kalovsky, Lavy & Orr, 2017). The point of departure for building the learning sessions, therefore, was an attempt to meet the needs of specific staffs within the working environment of the college. – At an early stage of the process, members of the core team decided not to rely on the instruction of outside experts, and the entire process was led and developed by college staff members who expressed interest in participating in the process. – The flexibility that characterized the process, as manifested in the personal and team-wide processes of reflection that were conducted along the way and that helped shape the workshops during the period in which they were conducted. – The comprehensive research documentation of the process, which constitutes a basis for ongoing organizational learning.

Theory U as a Framework for Analysis of the Learning Process This chapter addresses some of the main issues and dilemmas dealt with by participants in the process. In an attempt to lend rational-theoretical volume to the learning process, we propose considering these issues and dilemmas using Theory U – an approach that was developed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) by Otto Scharmer (2007) and associates and that offers a unique way of looking at problems

168

Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar

and the processes used to solve them. Contemplating reality using Theory U highlights the fact that reality is much more complicated than our ability to grasp and define it, therefore our approach when attempting to resolve issues and problems needs to be much more modular, diverse, broad, and open. Theory U holds that the common models used for problem solving are models in which work proceeds via clear stages of defining the problem and then formulating and defining possible solutions, while also understanding their advantages and their disadvantages. At the same time, in reality, leaders and managers face complex and branched problems that cannot always be decisively grasped and defined and whose definitions change from time to time. Scharmer et al. (2007) note the following attributes of complex problems: 1) their solutions are not always known; 2) the problems change, develop, and become more complex over time, and are now only partially visible to us; 3) the key actors in resolving the problems are also not necessarily known at the particular moment. During the process of researching the problem, the solutions and the actions necessary to implement them will emerge, and they will continue to emerge as long as the solution process progresses. Therefore, one of the main skills that Theory U maintains should be developed is the ability to contemplate. The theory title – U-shape –, is symbolic of the process experienced by a person, or a group of people, contemplating the phenomena, and itself, after internal and external inquiry employing the principles of the theory. The first half of the process (symbolized by the descending semi-arc of the letter U) represents the inward convergence, in-depth reflective internal investigation, and precise contemplation that paves the way for venturing outside (the ascending semi-arc of the U) to join others and to undertake effective action in the social world. This is a work method that differs from linear Western thinking. Like the reality of the world around us, it requires diverse and branched thinking. In the era of globalization on the one hand, and religious, ideological, and economic extremism on the other hand, the social problems we face today are complex and branched and encompass a multiplicity of people, groups, cultures, and political and economic institutions. This complexity creates a situation in which everyone views the problem from a different angle that is unable to encompass all of its aspects, every problem and issue is assigned a number of possible interpretations that can be confirmed, and every action impacts multiple realms, often in unanticipated ways. Therefore, when defining the problem, it is not possible to define all of its elements and aspects, and therefore both the problem-solving model and the model of action need to be modular, multifaceted, and infinite.

11 Developing Spaces for Dialogue in a Complex and Diverse Academic Environment

169

The Seven Stages of Work according to Theory U The course of action according to Theory U consists of seven stages, each of which is essential for advancing to the next. Overall, the process encompasses renewed contemplation of reality; awareness of patterns of thought and action; an attempt to find new patterns according to which we can grasp reality and act; finding new ways of grasping reality; and establishing actions based on these new understandings and putting them into action. Below is an explanation of the stages of action according to Theory U.

Downloading: Understanding and Suspending Existing Patterns of Action and Thought A familiar stimulus prompts a familiar and routine response. The unfulfilled desire to work in an optimal manner in a diverse environment is grounded, among other things, in the need to divert attention to new parts of the problem and to develop new ways of working. Establishing new actions requires abandoning previous patterns of thought and action. As already explained, a complex reality creates complex problems, the scope of which we have no way of grasping and for which we are unable to build structured and planned solutions. We cannot know ahead of time who the key actors of the solution will be, as they are revealed to us only as the solution takes form. Through the joint process of investigating the problem, we understand the different spaces it touches, we understand how we can define the problem in a constructive way that helps us construct a solution, and we understand where to begin building responses and actions to solve the problem.

Seeing: Contemplating Reality with Fresh Eyes and Calculating a New Path Charles Darwin carried around notebooks in which he recorded all the phenomena he encountered that contradicted his theories, and Copernicus recognized that we needed to be focusing our attention on the sun and not on the Earth. Seeing constitutes the point of transition from reliance on regular patterns to more precise observation. This type of seeing stems from a change in or expansion of point of view, from the suspension of judgement that opens us up to wonder to the asking of new questions. Based on the approach that crises are usually a product of seeing reality incorrectly, seeing is viewed as the healthiest way of coping with reality (Scharmer, 2007).

170

Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar

Sensing: Receiving Sensations from the Field of Reality and Relinquishing Previous Conceptions During the stage of sensing, the group’s perception of the situation with which it is contending stems collectively from the field, and not from the patterns of knowledge and thinking of the individuals in the group. When this happens, the line between the observer and the sphere being observed collapses, and the observer looks at the system with a feeling that he or she is part of it. The line between ‘us’ and ‘them’ dissolves. At this stage, the participants begin to understand the entirety of the relations within the system and their location within these relations. This understanding is based on a capacity for abstract thinking, as well as on emotional abilities and an awareness of the ways in which participants perceive reality with their own intelligence and emotions and take part in it themselves. Sensing, then, is seeing reality in a holistic, and not only an intellectual, manner.

Presencing Presencing means connecting to the source of the self/group and allowing reality, in its new interpretation, to enter me. This principle encourages what the developers of the theory refer to as ‘learning from the reality that wants to be revealed.’ On the U process diagram, this stage is located at the bottom of the U-shape, as it combines internal seeing and new understanding of the self. It is based on self-knowledge and on the single-sided association between the self and the aim of the work of the individual, in the sense of ‘know thyself’ and ‘be the change you wish to create.’ Only after the group of individuals that constitute it part with previous patterns and truths are they capable of ‘crossing the threshold,’ giving up the former ‘I’ and former components of identity, and finding new possibilities of understanding, interpretation, and action. The challenge of crossing the threshold is one of facing and contending with the fear of ‘losing myself’ – letting go of my old self and my former identities – and psychologically dying in order to move in the direction that wishes to awaken within me.

Crystallizing Vision and Intention After the previous phase, in which we connected to our source, relinquished previous conceptions, and saw the subject in a new way, during this phase we crystalize vision and intention from our highest future possibility. It is during this phase that the vision begins to take form and to be filled with details. It is a practical phase of building the framework for future action, based on the new perceptions that were developed, and on the vision and the principles that were clarified during the process.

11 Developing Spaces for Dialogue in a Complex and Diverse Academic Environment

171

Prototyping After the collective reflective listening, new shared information is produced. From this information, the group creates a prototype that constitutes an initial form of action. The prototype is an initial raw model of actualizing the vision, and because it is raw, its use elicits feedback from the surroundings, based on which we can learn and continue to design the prototype. As opportunities do not usually appear where we expect to find them, we must remain attentive to our surroundings and consider the opportunities we encounter along the way, even if they appear in ways we are not used to, or in different configurations. In the words of Haiku poet Mizuta Masahide: ‘Barn’s burnt down – now I can see the moon.’ That is to say, the vanishing of one reality, no matter how painful or surprising, brings with it an opportunity to see things clearly and correctly, as they are. We can only pay attention to such opportunities when we open our minds to new interpretations of reality. Based on an understanding that the prototype differs from reality as we know it, it is initially introduced to a small group to elicit feedback, and its design is improved as it is exposed to larger audiences. This requires reflectivity and analysis of the exposure as soon as it occurs.

Performing: Implementing the Prototype as Action in the World – Action Based on the Whole as Opposed to the Partial The prototype is implemented by a core-group, and learning occurs regularly, following each implementation and during the period of implementation as a whole, offering insight regarding the prototype’s implementation and improvement. The learning consists of group learning, peer learning, and reflective analysis of the practices that were used. The entire time, the core-group continues to consider whether the practices correspond with the original intention of the prototype and whether the original intention is still valid and relevant. The tools that accumulate during implementation lay the foundation for an institutional toolbox for the prototype.

Analysis of the Issues that Emerged during the Development Process and the Learning Sessions according to the Stages of Theory U We now turn to an analysis of the learning we experienced in the course of the year, as well as an explanation of fundamental issues we encountered during this period that required thought and solution as the process continued based on our understanding of

172

Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar

the issues and how we dealt with them. The issues are depicted in the core-team members’ reflections regarding the process, and we analyze them here according to the stages in the work process proposed by Theory U. The issues analyzed are as follows: – What is the diversity addressed by the learning group? – Who are the facilitators, and what is their identity? – What is the desired change? – What is the model to be implemented? – What are the expectations and the responses from the field? – What are we ultimately left with?

The First Issue: What is the diversity addressed by the learning group? As explained above, the unrealized desire to work in an optimal manner in a diverse environment is grounded in part in the need to divert attention to new aspects of the problem and to develop new ways of working. The move to crafting new actions requires the abandonment of previous patterns of thought and action. The first issue raised at the first meeting was a basic question that we are ostensibly not required to ask: What is diversity? Questions already emerged at the beginning of the process – What is diversity in academia? Who are we, and what is our role, as stakeholders, in solving the problem? In the first stage of the process, the project’s core-team devoted a substantial period of time to discussing the conception from which the process at the college would be derived. Through a process reminiscent of Theory U’s stages of Downloading and Seeing, we embarked upon a joint quest to examine the reality in which we found ourselves. The quest was internal, each with ourselves as part of a group quest; it involved the formulation and presencing of our personal views and conceptions and the definition of our group conceptions and conceptualizations. We agreed that talking about the ‘four tribes’ alone missed the fundamental point of working in a diverse environment. Together, we reached the conclusion that the concept of ‘diversity’ encompasses many different diversities and considerable complexity that must be addressed. Ultimately, we decided to change the PBC’s original definition to: ‘learning sessions for staff members on the subject of working in a diverse and complex environment’. Nitzan, a member of the core-team, explained the rationale behind the idea that ‘diversity’ was the main issue on which we needed to focus, as opposed to defining the topic with which we were engaged as the connection between specific, predefined ‘cultural’ tribes:

11 Developing Spaces for Dialogue in a Complex and Diverse Academic Environment

173

As the expressions of diversity differ from institution to institution, as does the direction of the floodlights, it is necessary to demonstrate flexibility and creativity and to expand the ‘boundaries’ and the content of the learning sessions. From the field, a need sometimes arises to incorporate into the learning sessions content dealing with social, economic, gender, class, organizational, or geographical diversity, as opposed to cultural diversity alone. That is to say, it is sometimes necessary to shift the focus away from strict categories of culture to the dynamics of the multiple identities in every person.

Our experience facilitating the learning groups, and the subjects raised by the participants in the groups we facilitated, clarified for us the extent to which the decision to address diversity as a topic proved to be more precise than focusing on four predefined tribes. Tamar shared her insight after facilitating a learning group session with members of the academic staff: [. . .] One of the senior lecturers in the group [of Russian origin] chose to speak about the difficulty she had standing before students in the classroom at the beginning of each semester, due to her heavy accent and the trouble she had pronouncing certain words.

Tamar’s’ words shed light on two important points. First, even in the specific cultural contexts, diversity encompasses many more ‘tribes’ than the primary four defined by president Rivlin. Second, lecturers hailing from groups that do not constitute the hegemonic majority (for example, immigrants) feel insecure when appearing before students. In other words, diversity involves power relations and feelings of threat that cross hierarchal lines, and even staff members, and especially staff members belonging to minority groups, experience this sense of threat. Next, Tamar shared the words of a long-time lecturer who described herself as more secure now than when she was a ‘young lecturer.’ In relation to this point, Tamar noted that, for her, these examples demonstrate the complexity of the power relations regarding the unique role of every lecturer/employee in his own right [. . .] The subject was also important and relevant because of, among other factors, the diversity and the complexity existing within the team itself. The relations between Jews and Arabs emerged as the major issue that was raised in all the focus groups that took place within the framework of the study. It therefore seems natural that when they are asked about the cases they encounter at work, this issue came up immediately [. . .] Sometimes, diversity includes the combination of a number of issues – as in the case of an older female Muslim student, for example – which makes it even more complicated to contend with.

The more the process progressed, the more complex it became. More and more, we together sensed the complex reality of the matter and felt that we lacked a solution or the right way of addressing the issue. Something in the self-confidence of the coreteam had been simultaneously weakened and strengthened. ‘Knowledge of the path’ was weakened, whereas the sense of ‘togetherness’ was strengthened – the sense of joint thinking and the sense of walking together down a new path, which we were then demarcating.

174

Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar

The Second Issue: Who are the facilitators and what is their identity? At the next stage, we raised questions regarding the essence of diversity and the social relations among us – that is, among the members of the core-team – and began discussing our internal social relations as a microcosm of social relations at the college. As a result, the way we spoke amongst ourselves changed somewhat and became less resolute. We began talking about experiences, emotions, and learning. At this stage, we enacted the stage of Sensing, in which we began recognizing more feelings that flowed from our experiences and relinquishing previously-held perceptions and views and making mental room for new ones. During this stage, questions emerged regarding the role of each of us in the process, both within the group and vis-à-vis other college employees and other groups at the college. Examining our organizational location within the college required understanding of the existing power relations, as perceived and legitimized by the employees, and as we perceive them. This examination enabled us to understand that our perception of our position in the process and the organization could differ from our position as perceived by other employees of the college. From our perspective, anyone with an interest in the issue, with previous experience in workshop activity or other engagement with issues of diversity and complexity, was fit to be part of the core-team leading the process. At the same time, we became aware that in an environment where information is judged almost exclusively using academic criteria, members of the senior staff who took part in the workshops may doubt the knowledge of the members of the junior staff on the core-team, whose organizational status has still been established. Tamar: “The workshops caused my concern about the participants” reactions to the fact that I, as a junior and relatively young members of staff, would be facilitating the group’. Na`ama articulated a similar concern: “How would the participants perceive me as a facilitator, as some of them have known me since my days as a student at the college? And suddenly, I am standing before them wearing the hat of a lecturer and a supposed ‘expert’.” In addition to these concerns, Na`ama spoke of a sense of discomfort regarding the difference between her academic position and that of her co-facilitator of the group: ‘Other questions that troubled me were how it would be for me to cofacilitate with a senior lecturer, whose status at the college was better established than mine?’ Issues involving power relations within the college were a topic that was impossible to ignore during the process. In one group, the participants, members of the administrative staff, raised concerns about insufficient appreciation for their jobs among certain members of the academic staff. The facilitators of the group, who were members of the academic staff, felt uncomfortable:

11 Developing Spaces for Dialogue in a Complex and Diverse Academic Environment

175

Some of the content raised by the participants made me cringe – for example, when they talked about the contempt of the academic staff they experienced. It caused me to wonder whether I, too, was a party to this contemptuous treatment. And whether they perceived me in that way [. . .] Whereas I perceived myself as less privileged than the participants, they may have perceived themselves as less privileged than me.

On more than one occasion at the beginning of the process, we deliberated about whether it would be necessary to recruit outside facilitators, or whether we should stick to people who were already active at the college. The college’s Israeli Hope supervisor recognized that there were individuals at the college who were familiar with the characteristics, the people, the principles, and the organizational culture of the college and therefore had the potential to develop a process that would suit the college much more than a process driven by an outside party that would need to learn all the information at the college and design a program. The Israeli Hope program supervisor also recognized that there were individuals in the college who could lead and moderate such a process. Therefore, while composing the program’s core-team at the college, she has approached specific individuals who suited the premise of building an internal process. This course of action on her part was also motivated by the essential aim to create ‘something sustainable’ that would remain even after Israeli Hope ceased funding the operation. It was therefore necessary to develop the knowledge at the college in order to ground this significant learning process within the organization so that it could continue in the future. During the process of recruiting the core-team to lead the project’s program of learning sessions at the college, the Israeli Hope supervisor learned of a large-scale study that had already been conducted at the college and naturally approached those who had conducted it. This was based on the understanding that the staff members in question provided a unique opportunity to rely on knowledge that had already been assembled in order to make the process more precise. At the same time, it was also a chance to establish a research foundation that could serve and enrich the study that was underway by adding a supplementary learning process. A large part of this study was conducted under the auspices of or with the support of the Action Research Center for Social Justice, which has been operating at the college for years addressing issues of social diversity. Moreover, the Action Research Center’s activity at the college included a forum for reflective learning for different projects of the academic puzzle, which is mentioned in another chapter of this book. The Israeli Hope project fit into the puzzle well and became a part of it, also operating in the spirit of the action research approach. All this led to an understanding that the college was a site abound with years of experience stemming from shared learning by a team of partners at the college and therefore presented the potential for a process, with such characteristics, of ongoing learning that flattens the hierarchy between facilitators and participants as knowledge and practice develop through learning among the learners. These considerations resulted in the decision that the model for working with the staff needed to be based on local

176

Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar

elements. As a core-team, we made it our goal to build the knowledge base; to name it, frame it, and reflect upon it; to propose principles of action; and to help translate the knowledge and the participants’ ways of coping into best practices. Tamar expressed this in her reflection as follows: Our acquaintance with the participants and with their situations and their stories created a sense of closeness and shared destiny [. . .] It was clear that we (the facilitators) were familiar with the complexity of which we spoke, and we were able to talk about the instances out of a sense of familiarity and joint action [. . .] I also feel that our previous acquaintance with the participants contributed to the workshop’s successful implementation.

Ultimately, because we are part of the college staff, the message we were conveying by leading the process for the rest of our college was that any staff member can be part of the program’s development team and can be an agent of change and influence within the broad circles of the college community, including students, temporary agency workers and maintenance workers, candidates, suppliers, external partners, and others.

The Third Issue: What is the desired change? While reading about Theory U prior to writing this article, we learned that the Sensing stage meant contemplating the college while perceiving ourselves as part of it and taking into account all the partners and the involved stakeholders (Scharmer, 2007, pp. 151–155). During our process, this in-depth discourse was supported, among other things, by a ‘check-in’ round and a moment of silence at the beginning of each session. The goal was to bring to the encounter not only our intellectual abilities, which come so naturally in the academic context, but rather also our conscious emotional presence. After all, emotion is always present, but in academic contexts we do not always acknowledge its relevance to the process. In such cases, emotion is like an elephant in the room: present, but not presenced. We understood that our way of seeking an understanding of the desired change was by presencing our emotional presence. In the process, we also understood that the desired change – from our perspective as the core-team – or our yearning for change at the college was the introduction of the forces and skills of sensing. Amos described our role vis-à-vis the involvement in the process of the other college staff members as follows: To recruit them as partners in understanding the existing situation, identifying needs that are not recognized/talked about, investigating these needs to gain an in-depth understanding of them, and creating connections with other parties at the college to develop new responses [. . .]

11 Developing Spaces for Dialogue in a Complex and Diverse Academic Environment

177

Michael stressed the possibility for change reflected in the fact that the learninggroup process constituted the first opportunity for staff members to talk about their feelings within the college: [It is] an organizational field that, at least until now, has not related to their personal experiences and their feelings [. . .] They got used to being very task-oriented, to focusing on doing, and to ignoring the personal-emotional aspect [. . .] They internalized the lack of attention to this aspect. At least on the surface of things, it (what we are doing) appears strange or not pertinent to them. It finds expression when they say to us ‘[we] want tools’ [. . .] It is not a matter of skills and tools, but rather a conceptual change in path [. . .] a response regarding the emotional aspect.

Sensing was raised during the development of the learning workshops as a major goal of the organizational and personal development of the college personnel. As the development team, we forecasted, and subsequently observed in the responses of the participants, that many of them expected the learning sessions to provide them with ‘tools’ – concrete responses, or protocols of action to be employed when they encounter specific situations relevant to diversity. Nonetheless, as a team we chose to focus on experiences and emotions in an attempt to change ways of thinking about the meaning of our work as members of the college staff. In this way, tension emerged between peer learning on the one hand and expectations for training by experts and the provision of applied tools on the other hand. Nitzan: A major question that came up in the free discussion among participants toward the end of the session was: ‘What is the aim of these sessions?’ When the question was asked, I joined the discussion, and I later spoke with a staff member who had taken part in the workshop. She noted that most of the employees had gotten used to working in an organization that does not allow them to reside in ‘being,’ to ask questions, and to look inward, and that therefore the discourse we developed through the learning sessions challenged them. The current learning process allows time to pause to think about ways of contending, to engage in self-examination regarding identities, and to encounter other identities. It seems to me that the employees are used to bottom lines, tools, and concrete goals.

At the learning sessions of the core-team, where we planned the learning sessions for the different staffs (administrative and academic), we contemplated about the ‘tools dilemma’. In the wake of the group process we underwent, we understood that contending with diversity would mean taking a new look at the subject and a more dynamic and open conception of reality that can be interpreted in diverse ways, all of which had a place in the ‘reality’ that was built anew at each session. We understood that the most meaningful and practical tool from our perspective was the tool of reflection: looking outward and inward at the way in which we encounter diversity and the challenges it presents for us, beginning with the question: What is the diversity we are coping with? At the same time, the sessions involved a dilemma: Would tools of contemplation and thinking satisfy the participants or would it be necessary to provide them with concrete, practical tools? We understood that creating a constructive

178

Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar

discourse with college staffs would require recognizing the needs of the workshop participants, beyond the rules of reflection and seeing, which, from our perspective, constitute the core of contending with racism. Based on our conclusion that creating a discourse with the workshop attendees also required concrete tools for coping with diversity, we built a series of staff workshops comprising three segments: raising awareness on the subject of diversity based on modes of coping with diversity among the staff; developing other means of engaging diversity based on the sharing of personal and professional experiences; and formulating principles of action for dealing with diversity. We also understood that we would need to conduct the three segments of the workshop based on the time slots we would be allocated for each learning group. This stage of the process corresponded with the Theory U stage of Crystallizing. Actually, after understanding and connecting to our group creed, we formulated the vision of the workshops and made a decision regarding the approach to building them, which combined our professional conceptions and the real constraints that we took into consideration during the process. We did this without relinquishing our aspiration to pursue the optimal future possibilities – creating an open constructive discourse regarding coping with diversity and developing ways of thinking, contemplation, and action to engage with diversity. At this stage, in accordance with the stage of Crystallizing, the vision was formed to the point of understanding the necessity of building a workshop that incorporates concrete solutions but is based on a discourse of reflective mentality as a primary tool for coping with diversity. In her reflection, Tamar wrote the following: [. . .] Some of us pondered the question of whether it would be possible to provide participants with applied tools of any kind for their future work. In retrospect, I think that the workshopnature of the sessions is very important as a stage in itself. It should not be replaced by thinking about applied tools for the attendees [. . .] The possibility of raising the dilemmas that concern us and raising them for discussion with the participants themselves – that was very good and meaningful in my view.

The practicability of the sessions was a subject we continued to deliberate about, and different views were expressed in our discussion. Some of the facilitators agreed that the sessions should focus on raising issues and on reflective discussion, whereas others felt that, as facilitators of the sessions, they were obligated to encourage the production of operable products. According to Anat: All the participants were positive and said that it was interesting and meaningful. There were also a few who said that they had had enough sharing and wanted to receive tools and instructions for action and so forth. We again explained that our point of departure was that all the knowledge [. . .] is in the room. They described and experienced the process as meaningful, especially the opportunity the sessions created for sharing and joint thinking about their work.

11 Developing Spaces for Dialogue in a Complex and Diverse Academic Environment

179

Na`ama, on the other hand, maintained the following: [I thought] that the workshop process would have added value [. . .] that it needs to involve some kind of ‘concrete’ product, such as a position paper [. . .] The mutual sharing of challenges, difficulties, and successes, and the insights that emerge from them, are of course very important, but they are not enough. I fear that theoretical discussions that do not pertain to their daily life may miss the mark [. . .]

Ultimately, despite the disagreements, we recognized that a staff that is used to setting concrete goals has a great need for a different, more reflective discourse, which Na`ama described as “the opportunity to momentarily stop the routine of work and to discuss, together, whether their colleagues’ work involves difficulties, misgivings, and experiences”. Indeed, the learning-group sessions brought to the surface a sense that attendees wanted to talk about the meaning of their work, as well as the visibility or lack of visibility of their work at the college in general and vis-à-vis the administration in particular. We thought that at least some of the sessions played an important role in achieving this goal. It was an exceptional initial opportunity for staff members, who have worked together for long periods of time, sat down together and talked about the meaning of their work, shared the dilemmas they experienced, their frustrations, and their doubts. In the reflections following these sessions, Noah wrote: “I feel like the sharing opened up a new discourse”. This stage incorporated the formative stage of Presencing, in which we connect to the source of our self and the group. During this stage, we allowed reality to penetrate us, on the personal and the group level, and we allowed this reality to introduce new interpretations. The understanding that we are the knowledge, by virtue of our presence in the group – and that outside knowledge would be neither accurate nor relevant, despite the existence of cultural diversity experts ‘outside’ – is an understanding that disrupts the consensus regarding ‘who is an expert’. It is an understanding that can constitute the beginning of a process of learning from the future that is about to be revealed, through connection to the ‘source’ and crossing the threshold into new realms of contemplating and conceptualizing reality.

The Fourth Issue: What is the model to be implemented? In the course of the process of thinking and doing, we understood that we had developed a number of major themes that were a basis for change. First, we understood that the existing knowledge in the field was the relevant knowledge that could serve as a basis for change. In other words, the basis of our conception was that the staff members themselves could serve not only as instigators of change but also as a

180

Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar

source of insights according to which change could take shape – insights emerging from the joint processing of situations where they had already grappled with diversity allowing to learn about effective and ineffective ways of doing so. In addition, we understood the importance of a general model that would be flexible enough to be adapted, on an individual level, to each of the administrative and academic departments in terms of content-oriented emphases, the structure of the sessions, and the examples. This, we concluded, would help make the process meaningful and precise for each of the participants. Thus, as the process progressed we have built a prototype for learning sessions, which we launched for small audiences. We received feedback, contemplated and sought ways of improving the prototype and increasing the precision of the different variations of its implementation. This process of developing a tailor-made design created substantial work for the team, and our work proceeded based on the understanding that what we were doing constituted a ‘pilot’. Tamar described the complexity of working in a dynamic manner and of the challenge that we, as a team, faced in building something that would be suitable for everyone: [. . .] We regard the aspect of dynamic work as very important. It is a major strength of the program, but it also creates complexity that makes the work of the facilitators difficult, as their learning actually occurs as they conduct the workshops themselves.

The Fifth Issue: What are the expectations and the responses from the field? The Feedback and Our Interpretation of It This stage corresponds with the Theory U stage of implementing the prototype for action in the world. As noted above, after each workshop, the facilitators documented their experiences and thoughts pertaining to it, their deliberations regarding its success, and thoughts regarding the development and fine-tuning of the prototype. At this stage of the implementation of the workshops, we contemplated our activity and the feedback we received from the workshop attendees, compelling us to face the feedback, which was not always easy or pleasant to process. Wafa described her disappointment with the partial cooperation of the attendees: “We were connected to their work situation, but they did not want to break things down to deeper levels”. As facilitators, we undertook self-examination that was quite fundamental. According to Na`ama:

11 Developing Spaces for Dialogue in a Complex and Diverse Academic Environment

181

[There was a] sense of fatigue in the room. Maybe they did not want recipes, but rather something else. Maybe we were not connected to their work. Maybe we arrived [. . .] at the process with prior assumptions, including assumptions regarding location, hierarchy, respect, and knowledge – everything was present within us, even as facilitators.

Michal described the learning sessions as having an ambitious goal: “We are trying to deconstruct the academic DNA. This is a goal that is too difficult to digest”. Michael voiced similar terms: At least on the level of the team, there were people trying to deconstruct this DNA, but each in their own specific area. And I agree that once you press that button, things begin to ricochet, and a great deal of caution was exercised here . . . I saw it as a group undermining this DNA . . . At one of the workshops, people spoke about their pain, stemming from years of a certain kind of treatment. When it came up, I suddenly saw a crack in the DNA.

“they got angry at us for only bringing up the pain”, Na`ama explained, “and we left”.

The Sixth Issue: What are we ultimately left with? Part of the self-examination we needed to conduct pertained to the fact that the process was actually cut short. The supervisor of the Israeli Hope program at the college chose to terminate her employment at the college, and after her departure the project withered. A few months after this crisis, the members of the core-team met to ponder, in retrospect, the effectiveness of the entire process. Some of the sounded voices were relatively pessimistic. Their argument was that the learning group has not succeeded in creating a deep and genuine change in the discourse among the college staff. Most of us agreed that we knew ahead of time that the chances of a deep discursive change were slim, but we had expected that, as the learning process continued, more people would begin speaking using a discourse that was reflective and sharing. After allowing for our discouraged feelings regarding the cessation of the process, the following question was asked: Has the process been ‘a waste of time?’ The answers varied: Michal: From a broad perspective we did not waste time, as making change involves initiating a lot of things – some succeed and others don’t, and you learn from every miss. Wafa: We tried to convince the unconvinced [. . .] I like working in this realm. I felt empowered. I tried to give my all, regardless of the cost. I wanted to be in it. There was an investment, but I am aware of the fact that I would like its evaluation to be expressed in a visible manner. Michael: If we had continued, perhaps we would have found the right way to work.

182

Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar

Na`ama: It was flooring the gas pedal in neutral, imprecise [. . .] I did not feel that the workshops were having an impact on the staff . . . That was the beginning of the process. If this is the end, a great deal was invested without sufficient results. Anat: It gave meaning to my work at the college. The energy of the group made it meaningful. That energy ran out.

Concluding Discussion Our study demonstrates one mode of grassroots efforts designed to transform intergroup relations in diverse societies engulfed by protracted political conflicts. Contending with cultural and social diversity requires not only cultural knowledge but also reflective practices, skills, and new value-oriented meaning, including the asking of questions concerning the social and organizational-institutional hierarchy. Theory U is an effective model both for understanding the process we underwent and for guiding and establishing future organizational processes. Nonetheless, meaningful change involves processes of discourse creation, internal contemplation, the relinquishment of patterns of thought and action, and the establishment of new activity, processes that are deep and therefore long-term. They are processes not of superficial change but rather change that is fundamental to understanding the issue of social diversity. In our case, the organizational infrastructure of the academic institution presented us with challenges that made it difficult to conduct a deep and sustainable process of change. First, the work structure allowed us an extremely limited amount of time for the learning sessions. In addition, the organizational hierarchal structures presented challenges to the professional conceptions that crystalized in the group, which opposed the hierarchal functional essentialism that is characteristic of academia. This is a goal that is too difficult to digest. Indeed, personnel changes and the cessation of funding or external assistance had a decisive impact on motivation and on the practical possibility of the continuation of the project. Our conclusion from this is that without an internal anchor, in the form of the internal organizational infrastructure of an institution that prioritizes reflective engagement with challenges pertaining to the diversity and complexity on campus, these projects’ positive aspects will also be relegated to the history of the organization and the nostalgic stories of its long-time members. On the other hand, deep change emerges from the occurrence of multiple processes over an extended period of time. For each and every one of us, the very experience of authentic reflective work – which sought, at times successfully, and at other times less so, to challenge fundamental organizational principles of hierarchy, hegemony, and entrenched modes of knowledge production – constituted an experience and a personal process that either set each of us in motion toward a

11 Developing Spaces for Dialogue in a Complex and Diverse Academic Environment

183

slightly different location or further embedding of the main principles we have endorsed. The experiences of a substantial group of college staff members in a reflective learning space dealing with critical principles have the potential to penetrate our future work at the college and our other spaces of work, and to serve as an anchor for continued critical and reflective work. Critical work is based on three circles of work: critical analysis of the existing situation and the relevant knowledge, critical reflection on the analysis including raising our awareness of our position and our basic conceptions, and the choosing of critical action that challenges the social structure from a critical perspective. Introducing a discourse and markers of critical thought and practice to an academic institution that is based on hegemonic Western hierarchal foundations is, in itself, both a challenge and an empowering experience that radiates inward – on us as well as on the institution – by enabling alternatives to the hegemonic Western hierarchal discourse that prioritizes one narrative over another. In this manner, we believe that each staff member that took part in the development and the facilitation of the program of learning sessions benefited from the experience, as did the workshop’s participants. The practices presented in this chapter in accordance with Theory U are suitable for any organization or group of individuals that feel uncomfortable with the existence of hierarchies of knowledge and action that fail to empower and allow for action by all those in the space in question, be it an organization or an entire country. Theory U helps us understand how we can implement critical practices by breaking down critical practice into systematically structured, short-term stages, which can be implemented for every group of people that is capable of imagining a society managed by codes of humanism and multiple narratives and that has an authentic desire to dismantle definitions, recurring preconceptions and the curiosity and courage, during the process, to learn and to construct the new definitions that are formed through the process. The current study documents a social action of inclusion and the flattening of hierarchies between diverse groups who work in a hierarchical Europocentric social structure. The 7-stage model offered by theory U led us as well as the readers of this article step by step through the emerging understanding of the organizational situation and revealing the spaces where we can stamp a different innovative foothold and propose changes in the application of institutional inclusive practices upon the basic mechanisms of the organization. Theory U enabled us including the voices and knowledges of staff persons who are diverted in gender, age, ethnicity, politically and in their official status and to process these voices and knowledges into a significant corpus of institutional knowledge. This knowledge was the source for creating a set of actions towards changing and widening the institutional inclusive abilities and diversity. Our experience and its analysis using theory U contributes to the literature regarding grassroots efforts in conflict management and in changing intergroup relationships among groups who maintain conflictual relationships. Out

184

Gila Amitay, Daniella Arieli, Mor Dar

experience and analysis reveal how in societies that are constantly in a severe conflictual situation, bottom-up actions that are dialog-directed can thrive for constant changes even in a well-founded inflexible institutional structure.

References Brechin, A. (2000). ‘Introducing critical practice’. In A. Brechin, H. Brown, and M. A. Eby (eds.), Critical in Health and Social Care. London: Sage, 25–47. Desivilya, H., Yassour- Borochowich, D., Buknik, S., Kalovsky, G., Lavy, I. & Orr, L. (2017). Engaging diversity in academia: Manifold voices of faculty. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 36(1): 90–104. President Speech, Herzliya Conference (14.6.2016) https://www.gov.il/he/Departments/news/ speech-140616-01 (accessed February 15, 2022) Scharmer, O. C. (2007). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler. Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Learning from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler. Sirolli, E. (1999). Ripples from the Zambezi: Passion, entrepreneurship, and the rebirth of local economies. New Society Publishers.

Oriana Abboud Armaly, Daniella Arieli, Victor J. Friedman

12 Developing a model for intergroup dialogue in academia: Jewish and Arab Students in Israel Abstract: The goal of this chapter is to present a ‘grass roots’ effort to improve intergroup relations and create the conditions for dialogue between Jewish students and Arab/Palestinian students studying at an academic institution in Israel. The project we present here, took place in the form of an academic course. The course was a qualitative research seminar, redesigned to fulfill four main goals: 1) To promote a better shared life through the design of the natural space of encounter at the academic institution 2) To develop the ability to plan and implement action research as a life tool; 3) To develop the ability of reflexive learning; and 4) to create an enjoyable and empowering learning experience. This chapter offers an account of how the seminar was structured and features both dialogue and reflexivity between students from two identity groups whose relationship is normally characterized by tension and conflict. Keywords: dialogue, qualitative research, reflexive learning, reflexivity The goal of this chapter is to present a ‘grass roots’ effort to improve intergroup relations in protracted active conflict. We will focus on an academic course aimed at creating the conditions for dialogue between Jewish and Arab students studying at an academic institution in Israel. The course was a year-long research seminar for third-year students towards a B.A. degree and this chapter offers an account of how the seminar was redesigned in order to serve as a space for dialogue between students from two identity groups whose relationship is characterized by tension and conflict. The seminar course is based on a process in which the participants study the encounter between groups from diverse cultural, ethnic, religious backgrounds. In this process, the emphasis is placed on the encounter between Jewish-Israelis and Palestinian-Arabs, and on the recognition that these two groups are locked in an intractable conflict. In the course of the seminar, the students grappled with questions such as: What is the meaning of shared life in a shared space, both inside and outside the academic institution? How do people define their personal and group identity in such a space? How can we cultivate a shared space that is more immune to waves of bursting conflict?

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-012

186

Oriana Abboud Armaly, Daniella Arieli, Victor J. Friedman

National Context: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s most prominent, deep-seated, and persistent conflicts (Bar-Tal & Halperin, 2009). It involves two primary national groups: Jewish Israelis, including both native-born Israelis and Jewish immigrants from other countries, who constitute a majority (75%) of Israel’s population; and Palestinian Arabs, including a variety of subcultures and subgroups (specifically, Muslims, Christians, Bedouin Muslims, and Druze), who constitute a minority (21%) of Israel’s population. These two identity groups are not only polarized in their positions on the conflict; they also live almost completely separate lives. For the most part, they live segregated from one another in different cities and villages and receive a separate and ethnically homogenous education (Arieli, 2019). As a result, their encounter in academia is in most cases their first real encounter with one another, particularly for young members of both groups. This encounter is accompanied by prejudices and lack of information about the other side, in addition to negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, and antagonism (Bar-Tal et al., 2017). Normally, when this encounter occurs in academia, there is a tendency among facilitators and students from both groups to refrain from conducting or engaging in any discourse that may lead to confrontation with negative emotions pertaining to the conflict. In Israel, the encounters between Jewish and Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel in the academic realm have been depicted using four basic models (Maoz, 2011): The coexistence model, the joint-projects model, the confrontation model, and the narrative model. These models reflect different approaches to the intergroup encounter in the context of identity groups in states of conflict. The coexistence model emphasizes the development of good relations between the two groups by establishing relations around elements that are common to both groups as opposed to what divides them. The joint-projects model attempts to bypass the conflict and build positive relations by cultivating cooperation between the two sides for the purpose of achieving mutual overall goals (Sherif, 1958). The confrontation model is based on the premise that true change requires mutual recognition of the unequal power relations that discriminate against the Arab minority and in favor of the Jewish majority (Halabi & Sonnenschein, 2004). The narrative model holds that a change in relations can occur when members of both groups tell their personal life stories, and that listening to them enables the expression of tough issues on the one hand, and containment of what is expressed on the other hand (Bar-On & Kassem, 2004). From our perspective, these approaches are not necessarily contradictory, and the combined use of interpersonal discourse and critical discourse is necessary for bringing real long-term change. It is also clear to us that both perspectives – one emphasizing the conflict, the other focusing on the encounter – when used in combination, are essential while dealing with the Arab-Jewish conflict in Israeli academia. On

12 Developing a model for intergroup dialogue in academia

187

the one hand, a combined approach enables us to relate to the diversity dimensions of each group, affording a space for expression. On the other hand, it is absolutely clear that the conflict between Jewish and Palestinian-Arabs constitutes a major factor and is shaping the relations between the two groups in Israeli society. Sooner or later, every ‘serious’ encounter between these two groups must contend with the conflict. These two approaches both recognize the fact that institutions of higher education should play an important role in promoting values of equality and dialogue between Jewish and Palestinian-Arab students. Though research has indicated the critical role academia needs to play in promoting dialogue between groups in conflict (Arieli, 2019), previous studies have shown that academia is far from fulfilling this role (Arieli & Hirschfeld, 2010; Desivilya et al., 2017). In Israel, academia stands out as a place where Arabs and Jews, particularly the younger population, meet for the first time. It also differs from other deliberate spaces that intentionally arrange encounters. focusing on relations and the conflict in that academia constitutes a natural space of encounter (Valentine, 2008).

Implications for the Planning of the Seminar The model for the seminar course is based on insights that were drawn from previous attempts to conduct a dialogue between Jewish and Arab students attending the academic institution (Arieli & Friedman, 2015). In line with our approach, as well as our past experience, we decided to redesign the seminar on the premise that there are at least two conditions that serve to increase the willingness of Jewish and Arab students to engage in mutual dialogue. The first condition is engagement with the ‘here and now’, as opposed to the Jewish-Israeli–Palestinian-Arab conflict in general. Based on this condition, we chose to focus on the relations between the students themselves, both in the classroom and within the academic institution as a whole. The second condition is that the process be framed as an attempt to create a better future and on situations that the students can influence, instead of dealing with the unchangeable past. In this way, we decided to concentrate on developing the common space between the students instead of trying to resolve the protracted political conflict. Almost every year, a conflict occurred in class between the Jewish and the Arab students triggered by escalation of events in the country. Such events are always accompanied by intense expressions of negative emotions such as fear, anger, and embarrassment. However, as it will be discussed later, we have learnt that conflict and the expression of negative emotions by the students in the framework of the course, constitute an important stage in promoting openness and close relations between the Jewish and Arab students in the classroom (Friedman et al., 2017). In this chapter, we

188

Oriana Abboud Armaly, Daniella Arieli, Victor J. Friedman

discuss how to overcome over such crises positively using the concept of ‘emotional reappraisal’. We began with a brief description of the program of the seminar and the learning process throughout the two semesters. We then turned to an in-depth discussion of the model we designed, based on the following five principles which we believe are key factors in the promotion of change among the students in terms of their inter-group relations: 1) joint-teaching; 2) qualitative research; 3) conceptual framework; 4) dialogue; and 5) reflexivity. In the following section, we demonstrate how the principles were reflected in the process of coping with conflict and the reappraisal of emotions in a specific case. Finally, we highlighted the lessons derived from the seminar model, which we redesigned and implemented four times (over four years).

The Seminar Program The goals of the seminar as we defined them in the syllabus are: 1) to develop the ability to plan and implement an action research as a life tool; 2) to develop the ability of reflexive learning; 3) to promote a better shared life through the design of the natural space of encounter at the college; and 4) to create an enjoyable and empowering learning experience. Each year at the first meeting of the seminar we share the syllabus with the students and elaborate on the goals and the approach underlying them. We explain the course goals and methods during the first meeting, when changes for the students are officially still permitted and students can choose a different seminar. In practice, however, there was not a single case where a student decided to leave the course. The seminar’s program/learning process was designed around four main stages. The first, beginning with the opening meeting of the academic year (October) and lasting until midway through the first semester (December) is focused on developing a conceptual infrastructure that provides students with various conceptual tools related to the encounter between two conflicting identity groups, such as: multiculturalism, individual and group identity, conflict, dialogue, reflexivity and natural spaces of encounter. The aim of this stage is to consciously design a social space in accordance with these concepts. The second stage begins approximately midway through the first semester (December) and lasts until the end of the first semester (February). During this period, the students, working in teams of two, choose their topic of research and begin planning their study. Our goal at this stage is having all the students formulate a research topic, a research question, and a guide for the qualitative interview. This enables them to start data collection in the research field during the intersemester break.

12 Developing a model for intergroup dialogue in academia

189

The third stage of the learning process lasts from the beginning (March) to the middle (May) of second semester, when we instruct the students along the process of carrying out the qualitative study. In practice, this stage continues until the end of the seminar course (at the end of June each academic year) and the final submission of the research project. The fourth and final stage of the learning process is the presentation of the research findings to the class, which occurs over the final meetings of the course. In addition to these stages, the course includes two special events each year: A guest lecture and a tour outside the campus. The goal of the guest lecture is to expose the students to challenging perspectives on Israeli society as a multi-identity space, with an emphasis on the Jewish/Israeli–Palestinian/Arab encounter. Guest lecturers are Arab and Jewish individuals who embrace different approaches regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to which the students are exposed. The second event, an off-campus tour scheduled for the second semester, is supposed to allow students to become familiar with daily lives in various communities, such as mixed cities and regions where Jews and Arabs live in joint or separate neighborhoods. Over the years, we have visited Acre, Wadi Ara, Jaffa, and Haifa. Our experience has shown that during the tour, the students meet one another in a different way than through academia and experience further bonding as a group.

The Model of the Seminar Course – The Five Principles Teaching in-CO This principle emerged during the stage of developing the idea of the seminar. The need for joint-instruction by a Jewish lecturer and an Arab lecturer was already clear at this stage. Since the seminar is built on the idea of a common multicultural space, the importance of joint-teaching lies in its expression for both voices and perspectives – the Jewish-Israeli perspective and the Palestinian-Arab perspective – in the creation of the space. Each year, we (the facilitators) plan the seminar course together, conduct joint contemplation processes, identify needs based on experiences from previous years, and agree on the nature of our work together during the course. The participation of lecturers who present the two groups is important for all the students, and in particular to the Arab students who belong to the minority group. An Arab facilitator, who speaks their language and has similar experiences as an Arab citizen of the state of Israel, grants them a sense of security. On several occasions, we understood that the Arab students felt more comfortable sharing opinions, dilemmas and feelings with the Arab facilitator while refraining from sharing their

190

Oriana Abboud Armaly, Daniella Arieli, Victor J. Friedman

experiences with the Jewish facilitator. Jewish students also sometimes felt this way about the Jewish facilitator. Another issue addressed by the joint-teaching is the selection of an advisor for the student’s research project. Students in the seminar course are given the option to choose the primary advisor of their research project. Interestingly, Jewish and Arab students alike tend to be divided up almost evenly. That is to say, both Jewish students and Arab students select both the Jewish facilitator and the Arab facilitator, meaning that we, as facilitators, are always engaged in instructing groups consisting of students from both groups.

Research Projects The main assignment for the students in the seminar is to plan and carry out a qualitative study. This research project has two goals: 1) to instill research abilities in the students; and 2) to use research as a way of learning about the ‘other’, about shared spaces, and about the encounter between groups. We consider it extremely important to give students the freedom to choose a topic that truly interests them, as long as they relate to the concepts addressed by the seminar and with an emphasis on investigating social phenomena with a controversial nature that they experience or deal with. In a significant number of course meetings during the first semester, the students propose potential research subjects, consult with other students, receive feedback, and look for different collaborations among them. During the second semester, when they are expected to share their progress in the research process, they present their topics and discuss the interfaces between the various studies both on the personal dimension (experiences in the research field) and the social dimension, while searching for similarities and differences between the different participants in their studies. Our adoption of qualitative research as a central axis in the seminar, stems from the approach that it requires listening to the other and understanding the other from his/her point of view. Thus, we attempt to mitigate the students’ prejudice and judgmental tendencies. Due to their exposure to new contexts in the research field, the studies usually pose interesting yet difficult questions that form a base for vital discussions and even disagreements in class. For us, such cases, evoking strong emotions (especially negative ones) are considered as an opportunity for learning and dialogue. The research project’s contribution for the learning process is reflected in the following remark by a Jewish student: The entire process of collecting the data, meeting with subjects, conducting interviews, and writing the paper was fascinating. I have discovered that I am curious about investigating the unfamiliar and that I – as myself, and not as someone’s daughter or sister – can have strong opinions and reach views of my own that are

12 Developing a model for intergroup dialogue in academia

191

not influenced by my family. There is no doubt that my point of view today is about the ‘other’, especially in natural spaces of encounter is different. The above quote reflects how use of the research project enables students to overcome barriers and to open up to members of the other group. Sometimes, a research project not only imparts new knowledge but rather fosters a meaningful change on the personal level. Some of the topics chosen by the Arab students focused on investigating their in-group regarding social and conflict phenomena such as: Arab society’s perception of gays and lesbians, Arab teachers’ experience in a Jewish school, and Arab policemen’s perception of Arab society’s response to their work. These issues are clearly not discussed in daily life in Arab society, and it was important for the students to explore them through their research projects. Some of the topics selected based on an interest in unfamiliar social group included: the experience of Arab young adults in mixed workplaces; Muslim families’ attitudes toward women engaging in higher education. Some students focused on similarities and/or differences between the two social identity groups, such as: the meaning of traditional dress in the eyes of Jewish and Arab religious women, aspects of Jewish-Arab relations in shared workplaces and the development of a political view among young adults in the Jewish sector as opposed to young adults from the Arab sector.

The Conceptual Framework The initial course meetings expose students to the principles of ‘self in the field’ theory and action research as a method that accompanies the learning process over the course of the seminar. Action research is not a specific method of research, but a ‘family’ of approaches and methods that seek to create research ‘with’ people and not ‘about them’. Action research strives beyond the description and explanation of a social phenomenon, to spur and create more effective action, to solve problems, to promote learning and to implement social change. Action research as ‘self-study in the field’ is based on field theory and on the concept of ‘social space’ (Bourdieu, 1998; Fligstein & McAdam, 2012; Friedman et al., 2016). According to this approach, social reality is composed of social spaces that people build through their mutual relations with one another (Friedman, 2011). Field theory focuses on the relationship between the individual (the internal aspect) and the collective (the external aspect) and on the cyclical and reflexive path through which people shape subjective (internal) and objective (external) reality. Action research as ‘self-study in the field’ enables the shaping of action that has a conscious impact on different aspects of their lives. People typically relate to their social realities as something that is imposed upon them and that they have no choice but to accept, and our students are no exception. Therefore, we re-constructed the

192

Oriana Abboud Armaly, Daniella Arieli, Victor J. Friedman

seminar as a process where students become more aware of the space they are building together. The purpose of using the concept of social space is to convey to students the message that they are building or shaping the social reality they are experiencing. According to the approach of action research as ‘self-study in the field’, people can discover where they have an influence, even if only a minimal one, on the construction of social reality, especially when considering their classroom as a social space. Using this conceptual framework, we encourage students to ask questions such as: – How does reality (in the classroom, at the academic institution, in the country) impact me? How does it make me think, feel, and behave? Is this influence desirable from my perspective? How can I influence reality? – How do my thoughts, feelings, and/or my behavior influence the social space? Is this a particular influence I wish to have? How can I think, feel, or behave differently in order to produce the influence I seek?

Dialogue The seminar is based on dialogue. Isaacs (1999), defines dialogue as ‘the art of thinking together’ – meaning that members of the group not only talk to one another but also develop knowledge together, as he explains: Dialogue is about a shared inquiry, a way of thinking and reflecting together . . . it is something that you do with people. Indeed, a large part of learning this has to do with learning to shift your attitudes about relationships with others, so that we gradually give up the effort to make them understand us, and come to a greater understanding of ourselves and each other. (Isaacs, 1999, p. 9)

We have created conditions for dialogue in a number of ways over the years. Firstly, we use the term ‘meetings’ as opposed to ‘lessons’, in order to express that the learning method in our seminar is not a transfer of material, as in a traditional academic learning, but is a process of interaction and face-to-face dialogue among all course participants. In addition, from the first meeting to the last, unlike in the traditional frontal learning, all the participants, including the facilitators, are seated around a round table or in a circle (depending on the structure of the classroom). This seating arrangement enables students to see one another and to engage in face-to-face dialogue with eye contact, which is something that students have not experienced during the first two years of their degree program. The facilitators’ participation in the circle is a clear statement and a declaration regarding our role as facilitators and guides the dialogic learning process, as opposed to ‘knowledgeinstilling’ lecturers. Each year at the beginning of the seminar, we realize that the idea of dialogue and sitting around a common round table creates stress for some of the students,

12 Developing a model for intergroup dialogue in academia

193

stemming from the fact that this is an unfamiliar and strange form of learning. In an attempt to relieve this stress, we use the metaphor of ‘cooking soup’ to describe the method of dialogue, which we explain to the students as follows: How do we make soup? Before anything else, we need a ‘pot’ to contain the ingredients. The circle is our ‘pot’. During our meetings, every member of the group can add to the pot any ingredient she or he wishes– knowledge, thoughts, emotions, ideas, arguments, experiences, etc. In case that the discourse among us does not develop or is not interesting, the soup ‘will not be cooked’. If the discourse, or the heat, is too intense, the soup may boil over or burn. We want the soup to boil well so that all the ingredients are well mixed and cooked. Our job (as facilitators) is to maintain the ‘pot’s’ wholeness and quality so that it would be strong enough to contain everything that is cooked in it. Assuming all of this exists, only at the end of the meeting can we taste the soup and know whether it tastes good and was cooked properly or not.

This metaphor usually helps students understand what can be expected to occur in the course of the meetings, reducing their stress level and making them feel more comfortable. To enable the participants to think about their state of mind at the moment before entering the shared space, we begin each meeting of the seminar with a minute of silence followed by a ‘check-in’. Check-in involves a round, where everyone, including the facilitators, is given the opportunity to share their thoughts or feelings (Isaacs, 1999) with the others in the space. The ‘check-in’ metaphor, signifies a conscious entry into a certain space – in our case, the space of the classroom. Acknowledging the fact that sharing one’s feelings is often not an easy task, in the case that a participant is not interested in sharing anything, she or he is welcome to say ‘pass’. The rotation, then, continues to the next person. During ‘check-in’, we ask the participants to refrain from addressing questions or other comments to others, as it is extremely important that each participant has an opportunity to express herself or himself freely, without interruptions. After the rotation, students have an opportunity to make clarifying comments or to ask questions with each, as long as everyone agrees. While during the initial meetings, students often said: ‘everything’s fine with me’ or ‘pass’ when their turn came around, at later meetings they tended to open up and share their thoughts with their classmates regarding personal situations and issues, challenges in completing their research projects, or political issues on the agenda. The check-in round, as performed throughout the year, creates an opportunity for students to meet one another beyond the learning contents. Sharing these issues with peer students connects the group to the individual and builds the shared space among them. The individual feels that it is an open place, safe to share, and the group feels a sense of connection, identification, and/or empathy with the particular group member. At the end of each meeting we again hold a round – ‘check-out’ which aims to summarize the meeting and share insights. During check-out, especially later in the

194

Oriana Abboud Armaly, Daniella Arieli, Victor J. Friedman

course, the students frequently share their feelings about the meeting and express difficulty, challenges and negative feelings. During one of the meetings, an Arab female student described her experience as follows: I am not leaving the meeting with a very good feeling. It’s not that I don’t like hearing the views of the other side. It’s just that it’s sad for me. It’s sad for me to hear it [. . .] I heard extreme things that left me shocked, but because it goes on and on, I see that there is no peace. So it is quite annoying [. . .]

Thus, check-out creates space for reflection and the expression of feelings, in contrast to other academic courses, that emphasizes primarily cognitive learning. It is worth to mention, that as facilitators of the dialogue and in order to create a safe space for the students, we made a point of expressing, acceptance and containment. The method of check-in and check-out also enables students to practice inclusive dialogue. In a typical class discussion, when one student brings up a situation or a feeling, another student immediately responds and often disrupts with a contradictory opinion or a question. The result is a series of exchanges between two or more students, without the involvement of the rest. In such ‘ping-pong’ dialogue, each student is busy thinking about what he or she intends to say, rather than listening to the other student. Speaking in rotation, in conjunction with the instructions we issued to the students, does not allow such exchanges, and encourages the students to listen to one another. Although they are still thinking about what they would like to say, they are more open to listening, as the speaking order is clear and there is room for each person to express her/himself. This form of group dialogue also encourages students who do not usually speak in class to express themselves. At the same time, the freedom to say ‘pass’ respects silence and a student’s decision to avoid talking. In this manner the dialogue provides more quiet students with a sense of psychological security and a high degree of control over the situation. Paradoxically, then, a positive attitude toward silence encourages participation. After the check-in rotation, the dialogue is an open one. Sometimes the discussion gets heated, creating a dynamic of intense exchanges, escalation, and polarization. In such situations, we stop the discussion and ask the students to speak in rotation. It is a way of preserving the ‘pot’ and ensuring that the ‘soup’ does not boil over or burn, while at the same time not giving up the ‘spicy’ ingredients, which are no less important than the others.

Reflexivity From the perspective of qualitative research and action research, reflexivity is a skill of ‘self-critical empathic introspection and the self-conscious analytical scrutiny of the self as researcher’ (England, 1994, p. 82). This skill is an inseparable

12 Developing a model for intergroup dialogue in academia

195

part of action research as self-study in the field and of dialogue. Through reflexivity, students listen to themselves and learn to be aware of themselves and of their inner-world. Reflexivity enables students to guide their responses to different opinions and generates openness, learning, and change instead of escalation and entrenchment (Friedman et al., 2017). Reflexivity enables students to refrain from automatic responses and instead to look inward and to ask: What happens to me when someone says that? Which nerve in me do their words trigger or touch? What exactly is making me angry? Why do I feel pain? In order to develop reflexive skills, we designed a reflexive writing exercise during the third meeting. Following a brief explanation of the concept, we presented the students with a ‘stimulus’ (Kaufman, 2013), designed to elicit an intense reaction. For example, we presented a very provocative poster that was distributed by a right-wing religious party in Ramla, a mixed city, during the 2018 local elections (see Figure 12.1). This poster presented the head of a woman who seems to be of Jewish origin (eyes and skin color) covered with a traditional Muslim headscarf, and the inscription: ‘your daughter might be this girl tomorrow. Numerous cases of assimilation and nobody cares’. We asked the students to relay their own thoughts and feelings and to write them down anonymously on a sheet of paper. We then collected the sheets, mixed them up, and redistributed them to the students – so that every student received the reflexive writing of a different student. Subsequently the students read what they received, conveying their reaction to what was written by their classmate, then expressing their reaction by writing a paragraph on the same page. We repeat this process once more, ultimately returning the sheet to the student who initially wrote it, and asked him or her to silently read the sequence of reflections and to contemplate on the various reactions and write his reflections. Through such exercises students acquire skills of listening to themselves and engaging in critical contemplation of their thought-related and emotional reactions instead of responding automatically. They also receive a rare glimpse into the thoughts and feelings of their classmate, including those with whom they are more familiar and those with whom they are less familiar. When a student responds from such a perspective, as opposed to a perspective of negating the other, his or her ability to listen to others increases. This is what we aspired to achieve when constructing the shared space of the seminar. In addition to the exercise described above, the students are asked to submit a personal ‘reflexive journal’: following two other special activities: a guest lecture and a tour. After reviewing the development of the model of the seminar and its underlying principles, the following section provides an account of engaging with the conflict in the classroom by presenting a test case that occurred during the course.

196

Oriana Abboud Armaly, Daniella Arieli, Victor J. Friedman

Figure 12.1: A stimulus for a reflexive writing exercise (a propaganda poster for local elections in Ramla, 2018). Photo: Miki Rosenthal.

Engaging with Conflict in the Classroom During three of the four years we facilitated this seminar course, there were crisis events where conflict erupted between the Jewish and Arab students. These conflicts were always related to the special activities: the guest lecture or the tour. Each time we feared that these crises would detrimentally impact the course and the construction of a positive shared space in the classroom, but we ultimately realized that each time the conflict was followed by positive change in the Arab-Jewish relationships in class. It seems that the tools employed – research, joint-teaching, the conceptual framework, frame of dialogue, and reflection – helped the students to cope with the crises in a way that created greater openness, and resulted in closer relations. But the process leading to that outcome entailed escalation, polarization, and introversion. Below, we offer an account of a conflict that occurred during the second year of the course and discuss the lessons learned.

12 Developing a model for intergroup dialogue in academia

197

During the second year of the course, a tour was planned to some Arab villages in an area not too far from academic institution (‘Wadi Ara’). Shortly before the tour was due to begin, an escalation began after several Jews were attacked by Palestinians, with the onset of what came to be known as the ‘Intifada of individuals’ or the ‘Intifada of knives’ (2015–2016). Two weeks before the trip, one of the Jewish students (a religious woman) wrote a private email informing us that she would not be attending the trip because she was scared of entering the Arab villages due to the wave of terror attacks and that her family asked her not to take part in the trip. Gradually, more Jewish students began to voice similar concerns. When we explained the difficulty involved and our inclination to cancel the tour out of consideration for the fear of the Jewish students, the Arab students – most of whom lived in these villages – were insulted and angry. ‘It makes me feel like you are afraid of me’, said one of the female Arab students, prompting a Jewish students’ response: ‘That’s not true! It’s not personal!’. However, in light of the refusal of a large number of Jewish students to attend, the tour was postponed. One week later, the students were supposed to complete an assignment asking them to construct a vision for the college as a shared multicultural space. In light of the intense period and the feelings surrounding the tour, the Arab and Jewish students proposed to meet in separate Jewish and Arab groups. In our view, the separation was a good suggestion in order to enable the entire group to express the vision according to their own perception, rather than being influenced by or influencing the other group. The Jewish facilitator led the meeting of the Jewish group, and the Arab facilitator led the meeting of the Arab group. Although the plan was to talk about a vision, each group took advantage of the opportunity of being separate to say what they really thought about the whole issue and about people from the other group. In the Jewish group, the students complained about what they framed as privileges given to the Arab citizens, e.g. ‘I don’t care that the Arabs don’t do the army, but why don’t they do national service’? ‘They don’t pay taxes’; and ‘They cheat on exams!’. In the Arab group, the students articulated feelings of being labeled and stigmatized, remarking ‘the fact that a terrorist stabbed someone does not mean that I’m the same’ and ‘instead of feeling safe with us in our villages they are afraid of us’. Most prominently, they expressed their difficulty having faith in Jews. As facilitators, we encouraged the students to genuinely express their thoughts and feelings. For the sake of the safe space we aimed at creating for them, we refrained from judging or correcting the students, even if they said things that were factually incorrect or unacceptable to us. At the same time, we encouraged them to be reflexive, to look inward, and to be aware of the roots of these thoughts and feelings. One week later, a major terrorist attack was carried out in Tel Aviv, killing two and leaving six critically injured. As it turned out, the terrorist was from one of the Arab villages in the area we were supposed to visit during the tour. Due to the complexity of the situation, an atmosphere of fear and tension once again prevailed,

198

Oriana Abboud Armaly, Daniella Arieli, Victor J. Friedman

therefore, we decided to continue the discussion in separate groups. The group of Jewish students spoke about feelings of anger, threat, despair, irritation, betrayal, insecurity, uncertainty, and helplessness, whereas the Arab students spoke of feelings of disappointment, anger, inequality, unfairness, and injustice. Most notably, they expressed the feeling of being stigmatized and not being able to free themselves from such stigmas, which made it more difficult for them and mitigated their motivation to assimilate as Israelis. This time we adopted the role-playing tool. In each group, we attempted to encourage the students to put themselves in the place of the students in the other group and to try to recognize the feelings of the other side. Some of the students displayed empathy for the other side while still focusing on what the other side ‘needs to do’ in order to change the situation. When we asked them what they, themselves, could do to change the situation, most of them said that nothing could be done. The mood in both groups was one of helplessness and despair. This crisis occurred during the final meeting of the first semester. The conflict and the tension also impacted us, as facilitators. We began thinking that the seminar had reached a dead end and we were close to giving up. But, to our surprise, when we met the students again at the beginning of the second semester, we found that the situation was almost the opposite of what it had been just before the semester break. Instead of an atmosphere of tension and mistrust, what emerged was a deeper and more open dialogue than we had ever experienced before in class. For example, two female Arab students presented their research project exploring the preservation of the memory of Palestinian villages that were destroyed by the state of Israel during and following Israel’s War of Independence. In this context, they also shared their families’ experiences as refugees. Typically, such a topic, and even the very use of the word ‘Palestinian’, could have been expected to elicit severe reactions from the Jewish students. However, they listened, asked questions, and took an interest in the narrative of the Arab student. The same scenario happened when the Jewish students spoke about their identity and their mixed feelings regarding power relations in Israeli society. There was now a sense of mutual recognition, as if a barrier between the two groups had been removed. Following that, the students became closer to one another and related to each other in a more direct and empathetic manner.

Discussion: Emotional Reappraisal While contemplating the seminar over the years, we discovered that a similar process had actually occurred, with different levels of intensity, during three out of the four years of the seminar. The circumstances of the conflicts, the contexts, and their intensities had differed from one another, but the dynamic was the same: an open conflict, the expression of negative feelings, reflexivity, and a positive change in relations.

12 Developing a model for intergroup dialogue in academia

199

Until recently, scholars and mediators of conflict have treated unpleasant or ‘negative’ feelings as an obstacle to conflict resolution and have attempted to repress them or neutralize them. In recent years, the literature on the metamorphosis of conflict has been indicative of a change in attitude regarding the role of feelings in conflict (Halperin, 2014; Shapiro, 2002). Development has occurred in the understanding that the impact of emotion – whether ‘positive’/pleasant or ‘negative’/unpleasant – depends on the manner with which they are dealt. The literature suggests that instead of responding immediately to ‘negative’ feelings, people have the capacity to contemplate their feelings and engage in emotional reappraisal. The literature related to emotional reappraisal, treats it as an adaptive form of emotion regulation (Gross & John, 2003; Troy et al., 2013). Emotional regulation refers to the ability to observe and interpret strong emotional reactions in a manner that boosts cooperation, problem solving (Halperin, 2014; Shapiro, 2002) and long-term goals rather than immediate need satisfaction (Mischel et al., 2014). Through emotional reappraisal, parties can gain a new understanding of their situation and become more willing to forgo hostility and revenge (Long & Brecke, 2003). When examining our case, we conjecture that a process of emotional reappraisal did indeed occur during the course, and that this process happened as a result of the conflict, with the assistance of the tools described above (Friedman et al., 2017). Because both Arab and Jewish students live in the shadow of an ongoing conflict, most, if not all of them, come to class with ‘negative’ feelings, in particular fear toward the other group. We refer to this emotional baggage as ‘symbolic fear’ (Friedman et al., 2017, p. 360), as it is not fear of the physical others but rather of what the other symbolises. On a rational level, the students know that there is no reason to fear the other students; yet, despite attempts to be nice to one another, the symbolic fear and some other ‘negative’ hidden feelings nonetheless exist and create an obstacle to the development of close relationships and sincere dialogue. The eruption of conflict episodes contributed to the relationships since it gave students a chance to be aware of their hidden or unwanted feelings, to overtly express them, and to reappraise them. The reflexive and dialogic skills the students have developed prior to the crisis enabled them to contemplate their feelings. In addition, the seminar’s conceptual framework, which stresses the mutual construction of people’s internal worlds and external world, enabled students from both groups to relate to their feelings toward the ‘other’ not as something that is given and unchangeable. Even though they could not change the overall reality prevailing outside, they understood that they can influence the shared space in the seminar. The ability to split and meet in separately mediated by a facilitator from the same group, was a great advantage. It facilitated the expression of negative uncomfortable feelings, such as anger, fear, shame, and hostility toward members of the other group – feelings that the students would have otherwise kept to themselves.

200

Oriana Abboud Armaly, Daniella Arieli, Victor J. Friedman

in order not to hurt the other group’s members, or risking putting their relations with them on the line. Based on this experience, we learned that unloading unpleasant feelings in a relatively safe environment enabled them to fulfill their need for authentic selfexpression. Once this need was met, the students were sufficiently mentally unburdened and could be available to meet the perspectives of the other group and to have empathy for their feelings. The original vision of the seminar was to create a process of action research that would move the class as a group, and the students as individuals, toward a more dialogical space of encounter between Jewish and Arab students. It is clear to us that not every student undergoes a meaningful change and that the change that occurs can dissipate over time. Nevertheless, the most important and unexpected discovery was that under certain conditions, and using certain tools, the conflict’s eruption in a safe space, shared by Arabs and Jews, can promote a positive change in relations between them. It is not our intention here to suggest encouraging conflict in the hope that it will lead to change. However, we can certainly point out ways of preparing diverse groups and effective strategies for coping constructively with conflict when it erupts in shared spaces. The restructuring of the seminar was an initiative of the facilitators. It has been a ‘bottom-up’ activity, that challenged both the traditional authoritative way of teaching in the academia, as well as the ‘neutral’/ ‘passive’ approach of academia to the role it could and should play as a space of encounter in diverse and conflicted societies such as in Israel.

References Arieli, D. (2019). Nursing education, cultural differences and political tensions: An Israeli firstperson action research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 51(3), 262–270. Arieli, D., & Friedman, V. (2015). Between conflict and dialogue: Intervention processes in the encounter between Arab and Jewish students. Social Issues in Israel, 19, 9–36 (in Hebrew). Arieli D. & Hirschfeld, M. (2010). Teaching nursing in a situation of conflict: encounters between Palestinian-Israeli and Jewish-Israeli nursing students. International Nursing Review, 57(3), 312–320. Bar-On, D., & Kassem, F. (2004). Storytelling as a way to work through intractable conflicts: The German-Jewish experience and its relevance to the Palestinian-Israeli context. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 289–306. Bar-Tal, D & Halperin, E (2009). Overcoming psychological barriers to peace making: The influence of mediating beliefs about losses. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions and behavior (pp. 431–448). American Psychological Association Press. Bar-Tal, D., Diamond, A. H., & Nasie, M. (2017). Political socialization of young children in intractable conflicts: Conception and evidence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(3), 415–425.

12 Developing a model for intergroup dialogue in academia

201

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford University Press. Desivilya, H., Yassour-Borochowitz, D., Bouknik, S., Kalovsky, G., Lavy, I., & Ore, L. (2017). Engaging diversity at academia: Manifold voices of faculty. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 36 (1), 90–104. England, K. V. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80–89. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford University Press. Friedman, V. J. (2011). Revisiting social space: Relational thinking about organizational change. In R. Shani, A. B. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 233–257). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Friedman, V., Arieli, D., & Aboud-Armali, O. (2017) Facilitating emotional reappraisal in conflict transformation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 35(3), 1–16. Friedman, V.J., Sykes, I., Lapidot-Lefler, N. & Haj, N. (2016). Social space as a generative image for dialogic organization development. In R. Shani, A. B. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol.24, pp. 113–144). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348–362. Halabi, R., & Sonnenschein, N. (2004). The Jewish-Palestinian encounter in a time of crisis. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 373–387. Halperin, E. (2014). Emotion, emotion regulation, and conflict resolution. Emotion Review, 6(1), 68–76. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. Broadway Business. Kaufman, P. (2013). Scribo Ergo Cogito: Reflexivity through writing. Teaching Sociology, 4(1), 70–81. Long, W., & Brecke, P. (2003). War and reconciliation: Reason and emotion in conflict resolution. MIT Press. Maoz, I. (2011). Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation-aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 48(1), 115–125. Mischel, W., DeSmet, A., & Kross, E. (2014). Self-regulation in the service of conflict resolution. In P. Coleman, M. Deutschand, & E. Marcus (Eds.), Handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed, pp. 310–330). Jossey-Bass. Shapiro, D. (2002). Negotiating emotions. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(1), 67–82. Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349–356. Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2013). A person-by-situation approach to emotion regulation: Cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt, depending on the context. Psychological Science, 20(5), 1–10. Valentine, G. (2008). Living with difference: reflections on geographies of encounter. Progress in Human Geography, 32(3), 323–337.

Lubna Tannous Haddad, Orna Tzischinsky

13 The Intercultural Encounter of college students in a Research Seminar Abstract: The chapter reports on a practice-oriented intervention within a Research Seminar as a natural encounter of Palestinian and Jewish college students, all citizens of Israel. The students were engaged in cross-cultural research of sleep disorders while also undergoing a group process based on the Narrative Model. The goal was to promote empathy and intercultural discourse, allowing the two sides to learn more about each other. Reflections of the students, collected at the end of each group activity, reveal a trend of positive change in perceiving the stories of others. Keywords: intercultural encounter, Palestinian–Jewish, narrative model, research seminar

Introduction In Israel, the Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority (comprising about 20% of the population) have contradicting versions of the state’s historical collective narrative leading to the declaration of independence. The Jewish narrative sees Israel as the historically promised land for Jews and sees Palestine as a no-man’s land prior to the arrival of Jews. Thus, the Zionist movement claims to reclaim what rightfully belongs to the Jews’. In contrast, the Palestinian narrative states that, in the 1940s, Palestinians were forced out of their homes and land as part of a systematic plan to declare a Jewish state (Ghnadre-Naser, 2019). Those who refused to leave became citizens of Israel. Overshadowed by the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the relationship between the Palestinian minority and the state remains ambiguous and is mainly one of sustainability (Manna, 2019; Nashef, 2018). The emotional load and the political context associated with the gap between the Jewish and Palestinian narratives have created a complex relationship between the two peoples. This relationship, which can be described as fraught with mutual suspicion, stereotyping and ignorance, has been the center of numerous educational interventions with various focuses and approaches (Bekerman, 2018; Maoz, 2011). This chapter reports on a practice-oriented intervention that does not attempt to reconcile the collective narratives, but instead attempts to enhance intergroup interaction despite the presence of this ongoing conflict.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-013

204

Lubna Tannous Haddad, Orna Tzischinsky

Natural Intercultural Encounters on Campus Palestinian and Jewish citizens of Israel live mainly in separate residential communities in which they have preserved their cultures. They have segregated educational systems. Palestinians attend schools in their villages and towns, where classes are held in Arabic, whereas Jews attend schools where classes are conducted in Hebrew. For most young adult Palestinians and Jews, their first daily intensive Intercultural Encounter occurs on college campuses or in workplaces. The natural encounter of Palestinian and Jewish college students is dominated by political conflict associated with emotions and stereotypes. Research has shown that the mere presence on the same campus does not positively enhance the relationship between the two groups. Studies have found that Palestinian and Jewish students barely initiate interactions (Arieli, Friedman, & Hirschfield, 2009; Lev-Ari & Laron, 2014). Mostafa (2015) reports that Palestinian students in Israeli higher education institutions show virtually no interest in integrating in the social life of the campus. Campus interventions that promote intergroup encounters can thus help encourage interaction, despite the conflict-ridden situation in Israel (Ben David et al., 2017; Maoz, 2011).

Models of Palestinian–Jewish Planned Encounters The encounter between Palestinians and Jews has been the focus of a variety of educational intergroup initiatives since the 1970s. Such interventions have followed varied models and focused on diverse goals, such as changing attitudes, promoting intercultural awareness, developing relationships and raising political discussions (Beckerman, 2018; Golan & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2014; Lev-Ari & Mula, 2017). These initiatives have yielded several outcomes, such as change in mutual perceptions and changed attitudes toward compromise-based solutions of the conflict (Biton & Salomon, 2006; Maoz, 2000). Surveying reconciliation-aimed contact interventions between Palestinian and Jewish citizens of Israel, Maoz (2011) identified four models for such planned encounters. The Coexistence Model draws attention to similar elements and common cultural ground, focusing on cooperation between the two groups. The Joint Projects Model is based on the premise that efforts to achieve a common goal reduce hostility and promote interrelationships and the development of a joint identity transcending the separate identities. The Confrontation Model empowers the minority group so that it confronts the majority group about such issues as national identity, national aspirations and discrimination. Finally, the Narrative Storytelling Model invites both groups to share personal and collective stories in a safe, empathic space. The narrative approach has shown positive results in several Palestinian–Jewish intergroup interventions. After a year-long workshop focusing on personal-historical narratives,

13 The Intercultural Encounter of college students in a Research Seminar

205

Palestinian and Jewish students at Ben Gurion University reported a change in their dichotomous view of victim versus perpetrator (Bar-On & Kassem, 2004). In another study, Jewish and Palestinian university students participated in a year-long Narrative Model-based encounter group workshop. Both at the end of the workshop and in a three-year follow-up, students reported that the intervention promoted an active listening atmosphere and a change in their perception of the other (LitvakHirsh & Bar-On, 2007).

Narrative Approach as the Basis of Intercultural Interventions The narrative approach, as the basis for intercultural intervention is reflected in six principles (Shliff, Leviathan & Faran, 2007). The first is the principle of interpretation, which states that people cannot control their reality, but they can decide how to perceive it. The premise is that we can truly understand a person’s story only through their own eyes. The second principle is that there are multiple stories and no objective reality; thus, different people interpret the same event differently. According to the third principle of social construction, people perceive their reality through a cultural context. In other words, one’s culture – its values, norms, and perceptions – affects how one interprets one’s experiences. The fourth principle is of language as the designer of reality: a person’s language affects and is affected by their perceptions. Narrative theory differentiates between internalizing language that unifies the person with a given characteristic (e.g., “he is a worrier”; “she is nervous”) and externalizing language that differentiates between the person and that characteristic (e.g., “his worries keep him from enjoying the trip”; “her nervousness is causing her to overreact”), focusing on the latter. While internalizing language creates a locked, unchangeable situation, externalizing language creates an opening with hope for change. According to the fifth principle of equality and sharing, no assumptions should be made about the other. The individual is perceived as the expert of their own life, who should be consulted about what is important and how to interpret their reality. The last principle is of DNA: the only way to get into a person’s inner world is by listening to their in-depth story. The closer we get to that inner world, the more we can reach beyond external differences to find basic human commonalities.

Learning about the Other: Empathy is Key Learning the narrative of the other is essential to any intergroup dialogue, whether on a personal or a group level, all the more so, in politically charged situations. By receiving legitimacy for one’s point of view, resistance is reduced, and dialogue opportunities expand. Studies have shown that Jewish Israeli youth who gave legitimacy to

206

Lubna Tannous Haddad, Orna Tzischinsky

the narrative of the other expressed a more positive view of the relationship between the two peoples (Sagy, Adwan & Kaplan, 2002). Nevertheless, acknowledgement of the other’s narrative can pose a threat to one’s own narrative, hindering mutual acceptance (Ron & Maoz, 2013). This is even more complicated when there is power asymmetry between the groups, as in the case of Palestinians and Jews (Ben-Hagai et al., 2013). Studies show that in asymmetrical situations, members of high-status groups tend to focus their discussion on commonalities, whereas low status groups tend to focus on differences (Pilecki & Hammack, 2014). In a recent study by Ben David et al., (2017), a group of Jewish–Israeli undergraduate students participated in a yearlong course in which they learned about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. They were exposed to Palestinian narratives and reflected on the impact of the Palestinian other on their own identity as Jewish–Israelis. Informative lectures were followed by deep discussions as well as writing assignments. Results showed that participants expressed increased empathy toward the other, as well as an increased willingness to accept both Jewish and Palestinian collective narratives (Ben David et al., 2017). As opposed to what is suggested by others (Bar Tal, Halperin & Oren, 2010; Ron & Maoz, 2013), the results of this study suggest that acceptance of another narrative is not necessarily at the expense of one’s own narrative; rather, the findings pose the possibility of developing a more complex view of reality that allows the narratives to coexist (Ben David et al., 2017). Moreover, the findings suggest that empathy is crucial for promoting mutual acceptance in conflictual situations. Ben-Hagai et al. (2013), suggest that leading a discussion in the here and now reduces the focus on ethnocentric talk and enhances mutual empathy and acceptance. Empathizing and resonating with someone emotionally has been shown to reverse the dehumanization which usually occurs in states of conflict (Halpern & Weinstein, 2004). The ability to see one’s ‘enemy’ as human, with similar needs and personal stories, can help prepare a path to reconciliation. In light of the encouraging results of the Narrative Model as a framework for addressing the relationship between Palestinian and Jewish citizens of Israel (Bar-On & Kassem, 2004; Litvak-Hirsh & Bar-On, 2007), the current intervention focuses on the Intercultural Encounter. In an effort to develop a more complex view of the other that overrides the stereotypical perception of the ‘enemy’, we focused on increasing empathy by encouraging students to listen to and resonate with cultural-personal narratives. The assumption is that, even with the political conflict in the background, mutual empathy will help visualize a human version of the other and encourage students to engage with each other, as such interaction is not happening on its own.

13 The Intercultural Encounter of college students in a Research Seminar

207

The Intervention Intergroup interactions on college campuses are decreasing. At the same time, the social gap between Palestinian and Jewish students in Israel is becoming larger. It thus appears that intervening in the basic realm of human relations is badly needed (Arieli et al., 2009; Lev-Ari & Mula, 2017). In this regard, the focus of the current intervention was not to address the political conflict, but rather to encourage interaction, based on intercultural dialogue. The intervention reported here is part of the Academic Puzzle project, funded by the Council of Higher Education in Israel. It was implemented in a public college in northern Israel. The project’s goal is to study natural spaces of encounter between Palestinians and Jews and to promote intercultural-personal discourse and relationships. Its activities occur within various academic courses as well as extracurricular settings. The current intervention took place within a Research Seminar. In their third year of undergraduate studies, students at the college are required to enroll in seminars in which they design and conduct research. The intervention reported here was implemented in the yearlong seminar titled ‘A Multicultural Perspective of Sleep Disorder’. This seminar, which has been part of the Behavioral Studies curriculum for several years, joined the Academic Puzzle project three years ago. The course in its present form has two goals: to conduct research addressing cultural aspects of sleep disorders; and to provide a class-based intervention that enhances Palestinian–Jewish student relations. Weekly classes were divided evenly between these goals. Throughout its first year, as part of the Academic Puzzle project, the seminar participants studied aspects of sleep disorder research, created a cross-cultural sleep disorder questionnaire, and designed cross-cultural research in sleep disorders. They also participated in intercultural class activities based on the Narrative Model. The class included 19 Palestinian and 9 Jewish students, all female (the department of Behavioral Studies has a very low percentage of male students). The power asymmetry between Palestinians and Jews was reflected on varying levels of their encounter. In general, Palestinians in Israel start undergraduate studies at a younger age (19–22) than Jewish students (22–24), as Palestinians attend college directly after high school or after a gap year, while Jews serve 2–3 years in the military, often followed by an abroad trip and a couple of years of work to support themselves before beginning higher education. This gap in age and experience gives the Jewish youth a head start in terms of maturity, self-confidence and the courage to talk about themselves, not to mention that college classes are held in Hebrew, and some Palestinians have trouble expressing themselves in a language other than their mother tongue of Arabic (Marom, 2015). They are forced, however, to speak in Hebrew, as most Jewish students do not speak Arabic. The illegitimacy of their language contributes to feelings of foreignness and lack of relevance of Palestinian existence in Israel (Mizel, 2021).

208

Lubna Tannous Haddad, Orna Tzischinsky

The seminar participants represented the diversity of the Israeli society: Palestinian Moslems, Palestinian Christians and Jews of European, Eastern and Ethiopian origin. Each group has its own perceptions of the other cultural groups. In addition, as students who registered for the course were unaware of its goal of Intercultural Encounter, it can be assumed that they did not represent a pro-dialogue segment. In other words, this was a natural situation for experimentation and intervention.

The Principles of the Intervention The current intervention was designed to encourage Palestinian and Jewish students, citizens of Israel, to interact and to get to know each other while learning about the common subject of multicultural sleep disorders. Meeting someone who represents a contradictory collective narrative can easily generate confusion, fear of getting hurt and fear of the dialogue being shattered (Bar Tal et al., 2010). At the same time, the discourse is crucial. Therefore, in the current intervention we chose to create a safe space in which students got to know each other based on culturalpersonal stories that they shared. The intervention promoted the premise that each cultural group has its norms, perspectives, accepted behavior and unaccepted behaviors. A successful dialogue between two cultural groups requires individuals to learn about the other’s culture and how it affects its members. The intercultural intervention reported here was grounded in the previously mentioned principles, based on a program developed by the Psychological and Counseling Services of the Ministry of Education in Israel. This program had already been implemented with Palestinian and Jewish high school students in Israel (Shliff et al., 2007). It included a series of group activities aimed at fostering a more empathic and tolerant perception of the other within conflicting multicultural groups. The first step was to allow students to choose the goals and the values on which to base the group discussion, e.g., mutual respect and authentic listening to the other. A joint effort to decide on the priorities and values of the group encourages commitment to the group process (Shliff et al., 2007). The class process was promoted with narrative theory-based techniques and activities. One technique is abandoning all presumptions and asking open, curious questions. The point is to drop any stereotypes and ask from a ‘not knowing’ position (e.g., “What is your experience as a Palestinian student? How does your family relate to your academic life?”, “How do you manage your everyday tasks as a religious Jewish mom and student?”). These questions reflect a nonjudgmental approach in which the person asking the question shows real interest in learning about the experience of the other. Such open questions encourage the other to share their story. Another important technique was echoing. In every class activity, some of the students would take the role of an echo. They were asked to listen attentively to the

13 The Intercultural Encounter of college students in a Research Seminar

209

stories and later share stories of their own that resonate with the ones they heard. For example, one woman related her experience and challenges in coping with being a first-generation student. This story had different echoes from different listeners in the class. One student said it reminded her of coping as a new immigrant; another said it triggered emotions and thoughts associated with moving to a new neighborhood at an early age. Echoing helps reveal common human notions and emotions, providing the students with new perspectives on the narratives of others. A third technique was asking the students to put themselves in the other’s shoes and try to imagine how this experience feels. An inherent danger of intercultural discourse is that of setting stereotypes that usually groups hold of each other (Maoz, 2000). This was counteracted in the current intervention by the underlying principles of the narrative approach, which are not conducive to generalizations or stereotyping. As mentioned, principles such as “no assumptions should be made about the other” and “others are perceived as the experts of their reality” were at the core of the intervention throughout the course. In addition, the intervention promoted in-depth listening to personal stories (reaching the DNA) which highlighted how much students do have in common, beyond their cultural differences.

Class Meetings Each class meeting was divided into two parts: In the first part students worked with the facilitators on their sleep disorders research and in the second part they participated in the intercultural activities.

Research on Sleep Disorders from a Cultural Perspective Looking at such a universal subject as sleep disorders from a cultural perspective emphasizes the comprehensive influence that culture has over many areas of our lives (Stamatakis, Kaplan & Roberts, 2007). It is widely known that the sleep pattern of a person is explained by a host of factors: genetics, behavior, environment and social elements. Moreover, tradition, cultural values, living conditions, family structure and even personal beliefs can have an influence on sleep ecology. Crosscultural studies can help explain differences in these factors (Giannotti & Cortesi, 2009). In other words, sleep can reflect a person’s cultural background. For example, co-sleeping is common in non-Western cultures that consider the night hours a time for family connection dedicated to storytelling and social activities. The siesta is common in Mediterranean countries and South America, where warm weather makes it more difficult to work at noon and a midday nap is legitimate (Reimão

210

Lubna Tannous Haddad, Orna Tzischinsky

et al., 2000). In Japan, people who work long hours take short naps in public places, such as parks, trains and even the workplace (Park et al., 1998). In the Research Seminar, students heard lectures about sleep disorders in general and from a multicultural perspective in particular. In addition, students in the seminar conducted research on diverse topics related to sleep disorders. Examples include “differences in sleep disorders between young (age 18–30) Palestinian and Jewish women”; “the relationship between sleep disorders and quality of living: a comparison between Palestinians and Jews in Israel”; and “sleep disorders among Jews of Ethiopian origin: a comparison between those born in Israel and those born in Ethiopia.” Students shared the results of their research in class and discussed sleep disorders in a cultural context. As the course progressed, students became increasingly aware of the multicultural prism through which they can observe sleep disorders.

The Intercultural Activities The abovementioned narrative approach techniques were employed in class activities. In small groups, students shared culturally related personal stories, such as stories about life choices, perspectives, priorities and decisions affected by their culture. The group discourse revolved around a matrix of human experiences and cultural backgrounds, including, for instance, family expectations, life choices and life experiences. They also shared personal and family stories about sleep habits and disorders and learned how these are affected by culture. They compared their stories, highlighting personal and cultural differences. The narrative approach highlighted for them both the diversity and the commonality of the human condition, even with respect to sleep habits and disorders. A Palestinian student shared: “My grandmother lives in the same complex, one floor above us. At night, my parents are usually alert because sometimes she needs help.” Another student, a young Palestinian mother, shared: “I’ve come to learn that it’s very important to promote reading habits among children and so, every night, I read my son a story. The story has become part of the bedtime ritual.” In one early lesson, students were organized in groups of three, where one was asked to tell a personal story showing how culture is reflected in her life and the other two were asked to listen carefully and pay attention to parts and words that touched them. At the end, the storyteller and the two listeners shared their thoughts. At this stage, a conservative Muslim Palestinian student shared how her career choice was affected by family expectations. She talked about choosing a nearby college, as her parents would not agree to her living away from home. Another story was of a young Palestinian student with a highly liberal, independent life who shared how she dealt with her society’s judgmental reactions. A Jewish student shared the experience of living with a chronic disease that affected her ability to move and how this was perceived by the people surrounding her. Students tried to learn more about

13 The Intercultural Encounter of college students in a Research Seminar

211

these experiences by asking questions and then sharing the echoes of the stories. The echoes resonated with the meaning of personal freedom in the cultural context, how cultural norms may control their lives and, of course, similarities and differences in their stories. These echoes revealed how social construction (i.e., how people perceive their reality through a cultural context) is an integral part of what might be considered a purely personal experience. In another activity, students were asked to think of different social groups that they belong to or identify with, such as their ethnic group, gender, immigrant group, religion and country of origin. They were then asked to tell stories reflecting the central values of these groups. For instance, one student told a story about being a college student and a mother in a religious Jewish community, while another shared a story about the challenges of being a Jewish Ethiopian student. They both talked about group priorities and expectations that were part of their everyday decisions and choices. The aim of this activity was to raise awareness of how group values affect the way we perceive ourselves and others. A third activity was based on the technique of externalizing emotions, which allows individuals to separate themselves from their emotions and gives them the option of deciding to what extent they wish to embrace this feeling (e.g., “fear makes me shut down” as opposed to “I’m afraid and shut down”). Students were asked to conduct imaginary interviews with emotions that they associate with the political conflict. They “asked” the emotion such questions as “How do you convince people to think in a certain way?”; “What tactics do you use to recruit people for your goals?” By doing so, students explored how emotions manipulate us as human beings and how this manipulation can be controlled by externalization. The above activities and others like them employed in the class all complied with the five principles of narrative theory cited above. Students heard personal stories, asked curious questions and experienced how people are experts of their own lives. Through the activities they saw how our culture affects the way we perceive what we face in life. The goal was to provide students with the opportunity and tools to listen to each other’s stories and develop a more empathic, culturally aware perspective.

Group Process and Students’ Reflections At the end of each activity, all the students were asked to write reflections about their experience. They wrote about their feelings and thoughts as they participated in the activities. This was their chance to share if and how they reacted to the group interaction. Their written reflections helped us as facilitators to understand the process they underwent. At first there was an atmosphere of tension. Students were suspicious of the process. As one student wrote: “This is ridiculous; they expect me to change my views of

212

Lubna Tannous Haddad, Orna Tzischinsky

the Palestinian society just because we are taking this class together. This is my fifth semester with them, what new things could happen?” In addition, many students were surprised by the course structure and even wondered about the connection between sleep disorders and culture. Their engagement in class discussions were out of commitment to the course. Most were not used to sharing personal stories in an academic course and felt uncomfortable: “At the beginning of the semester, I thought this was unnecessary, that the students would not truly reveal themselves and it would probably be a fake process.” However, the students’ discomfort decreased, and their curiosity and interest increased, as they became more involved in the process. The deep discourse of personal stories allowed them to open: – When we were asked to get into small groups for the first time, I felt uncomfortable. When this happened a second time, I hoped to be in the same group as the first time. The third time it did not matter anymore which group I was in because I was curious to get to know as many [others] as I could. – In one class, a classmate told the small group we were in about a rare illness she had. I was so moved, and I was curious to know more about her life. – Too bad this is all happening in our last year. It should happen in our first year so that we can have enough time [to really get to know each other]. As the course progressed, the reflections revealed growing interest in the other’s stories and surprise at how much the narratives had in common even when they came from another culture. Moreover, the more the process developed over time, the more daring participants were in sharing their fears and uncertainty about Intercultural Encounters, as expressed by a Palestinian student and a Jewish student, respectively: – At the beginning of my first semester in undergraduate studies, I felt like a stranger. I felt the undesirable looks in the eyes of Jewish students. I remember telling my mother that I don’t belong on the campus. – I felt angry every time I heard about the special academic support that Palestinian students received through the Dean’s office. I felt it was unfair to support only them, why not us? As the course went on, students were thus able to meet each other on common human ground. Even some of the resistant ones expressed a more cooperative approach. As several students reported in the reflections that they wrote in the second semester: – My empathy is expanding. – The activity in class broke the fear barrier that I had. – The activity in class turned it into an inviting space. – Suddenly Palestinian society entered my consciousness, stereotypes became vague and unreal.

13 The Intercultural Encounter of college students in a Research Seminar

213

In addition, a more empathic change was noticed among some of the students: – As a Hebrew speaker, I could not imagine attending an Arabic-speaking college. It seems impossible to study in a language other than my mother tongue. – Way to go for being able to adjust to a totally different culture while coping with academic challenges. I’m sure this was not easy at all. At the same time, despite the positive spirit and reflections, we could assume that conflicting political views and differences remained intact, as they were not actually discussed in the current process. Nonetheless, the personal stories highlighted common human experiences that go beyond cultural, social and political differences. Students of very different backgrounds reached the DNA level of the stories. They learned how similar their lives are and became more empathic and able to relate to each other. – I have learned that even someone who comes from a different narrative and different political views can still experience similar life stories. – As an Ethiopian Jew, I could relate to a fellow Palestinian student who shared her coping experience in her first semester on campus. The alienation, the loneliness and the fear of failure were all too familiar. Nonetheless, some students did not get very involved in the group process as it developed week by week. Obviously, not all individuals can share personal stories, despite the safe space and the trust that developed. As mentioned, some of the Palestinian students had difficulty expressing themselves in Hebrew and, of course, there were those students who continued to question the point of such a process. Although the class plans and activities were prepared in advance, sometimes we had to stop the process and listen to resisting voices. We allowed open space for different opinions and let students decide what and how much they wanted to share. Participation in the narrative-oriented activities was optional. We could also sense differences in students’ abilities and willingness to expose personal narratives. – You’re asking too much of me, I don’t think this is the place to share personal stories. – It felt awkward to sit in class and hear about life choices and family matters. I thought we’re here to do research on sleep disorders. Nonetheless, this did not stop us from continuing the process, as most of the students did cooperate.

214

Lubna Tannous Haddad, Orna Tzischinsky

Reflections of the Facilitators We are a Jewish and a Palestinian lecturer/researcher at the college. This seminar intervention was our first such experience, although we both have devoted many years to education and group management. One of us is also an experienced school counselor and a professional group facilitator. We were both born in Israel but grew up in different places – one in a Palestinian city and the other in a Jewish city. We knew little about each other’s culture and way of life before we reached the university. The presence of a Palestinian and a Jewish lecturer as facilitators in class gave a very clear message legitimizing an equal position for both groups. Although we merely led the process and did not participate as group members, our co-facilitation helped balance the power asymmetry between minority and majority groups and empowered the Palestinian students. We could tell that they felt our support. In our preliminary discussions, we addressed our complex reality and decided to focus on the intercultural discourse guided by the Narrative Model. Our choice was based on the assumption that authentic human discourse could create mutual empathy and a safe enough space to ultimately get close and learn about each other. As mentioned, it was not always easy. Sometimes students were reluctant to share and at other times some exhibited a negative response to the intercultural activities. We saw these reactions as legitimate, for we had no intention of forcing them into adopting new ideas. What helped us handle these situations is that we did not find this behavior intimidating but rather considered it part of the process. We allowed students to open up about their resistance in the here and now and legitimized unease and hesitation. Sometimes this made students more cooperative and sometimes it did not; either way, it was fine. We chose to take part in this intervention with the belief that, despite the differences and the ongoing conflict, Palestinians and Jewish citizens of Israel have the choice of building a common life together. However, this is a road filled with obstacles.

Concluding Remarks In conflict-ridden encounters, most individuals can be expected to remain entrenched in their own positions and to express little interest in the other (Mostafa, 2015). The goal of the current intervention was to promote empathy that extends beyond stereotypes and allows for a more complex view of the other. The course took two parallel paths. In one, the students studied sleep disorders and conducted research on its cultural aspects. In the other path, they engaged in intercultural narrative discourse, acquiring tools such as listening, echoing and reflecting. The yearlong process allowed them to develop empathy, tolerance and understanding. It enabled the development of a safe discourse of diverse cultural-personal narratives and promoted an interest in knowing more about the other.

13 The Intercultural Encounter of college students in a Research Seminar

215

As mentioned earlier, this was a practice-oriented intervention. The analysis here is based only on reflections of the students and the facilitators. These reflections, however, provide evidence of change. Student reflections about their experience in the course pointed to the importance of the intervention and its implications for positively affecting their perceptions of the other. The unique contribution of this particular project lies in its integration of intercultural activity in a Research Seminar as a natural space of encounter and in its focus on learning about the other through personal stories that resonate with all humans. Our encouraging results suggest that the intervention design can be adapted to other natural encounter spaces and other age groups. Recent studies have shown that Palestinian and Jewish students do no initiate social intercultural interaction but rather stay in their own group (Arieli, Friedman, & Hirschfield, 2009; Lev-Ari & Laron, 2014; Mostafa, 2015). It therefore seems crucial to intervene in natural encounter settings. The intervention suggested here can be applied to other courses and other natural settings. In our humble opinion, the experience is well worth replication and further study.

References Arieli, D., Friedman, V., & Hirschfield, M. (2009). The establishment of an academic nursing faculty: Action research in Israel. International Nursing Review, 56, 299–305.https://doi:10.1111/ j.1466-7657.2009.00709.x Bar-On, D., & Kassem, F. (2004). Storytelling as a way to work through intractable conflicts: The German–Jewish experience and its relevance to the Palestinian–Israeli context. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 289–306.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00112.x Bar Tal, D., Halperin, E., & Oren, N. (2010). Socio-psychological barriers to peace making: The case of the Israeli Jewish society. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4,(1), 63–109. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01018.x Bekerman, Z. (2018). Working towards peace through education: The case of Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Asian Journal of Peace Building, 6, 75–98. http://hdl.handle.net/10371/142681 Ben David, Y., Hameiri, B., Benheim, Sh., Leshem, B., Sarid, A., Sternberg, M., Nadler, A., & Sagi, Sh. (2017). Exploring ourselves within intergroup conflict: The role of intragroup dialogue in promoting acceptance of collective narratives and willingness toward reconciliation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 269–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ pac0000205 Ben Hagai, E., Hammack, P. L., Pilecki, A., & Aresta, C. (2013). Shifting away from a monolithic narrative on conflict: Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans in conversation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 19(3), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033736 Biton, Y., & Salomon, G. (2006). Peace in the eyes of Israeli and Palestinian youths: Effects of collective narratives and peace education program. Journal of Peace Research, 43 (2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022343306061888 Ghnadre-Naser, S. (2019). Between past and present: Psychological effects of the Nakba among Palestinian citizens in Israel. In M. Haj-Yahia, O. Nakhash & I. Levav (Eds.), Mental health and Palestinian citizens in Israel (pp.22–40). Indiana University Press.

216

Lubna Tannous Haddad, Orna Tzischinsky

Giannotti, F., & Cortesi, F. (2009) Family and cultural influences on sleep development. Child Adolescence Psychiatric Clinics,18 (4),849–861. https://doi:10.1016/j.chc.2009.04.003. Golan, D., & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, N. (2014). Community-engaged courses in a conflict zone: A case study of the Israeli academic corpus. Volume of Peace Education, 11(2), 181–207. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2014.898624 Halpern, J., & Weinstein, H. M. (2004). Rehumanizing the other: Empathy and reconciliation. Human Rights Quarterly, 26, 561–583. http://dx.do.org/10.1353/hrq.2004.0036 Lev-Ari, L., & Laron, D. (2014). Intercultural learning in graduate studies at an Israeli college of education: Attitudes toward multiculturalism among Jewish and Arab students. Higher Education, 68, 243–262.https://doi:101007/s10734-013-9706-9 Lev-Ari, L., & Mula, W. (2017). ‘Us and them’: Towards intercultural competence among Jewish and Arab graduate students at Israeli colleges of education. Higher Education, 74, 979–996. https://doi:101007/s10734-016-0088-7 Litvak-Hirsh, T., & Bar-On, D. (2007). Encounters in the looking glass of time: Longitudinal contribution of a life story workshop course to the dialogue between Jewish and Arab young adults in Israel. Peace and Conflict Studies, 14, 19–42. Manna, A. (2019). The Nakba and its repercussions on Palestinian citizens in Israel. In M. M. HajYahia, O. Nakash & I. Levav (Eds.), Mental health and Palestinian citizens in Israel (pp. 70–96). Indiana University Press. Maoz, I. (2000). An experiment in peace: Reconciliation-aimed workshops of Jewish–Israeli and Palestinian youth. Journal of Peace Research, 37, 721–736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0022343300037006004 Maoz, I. (2011). Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation-aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 115–125.https://doi:101177/0022343310389506 Marom, S. (2015). The Importance of Learning Hebrew for Integrating and Promoting the Arab Population in the Israeli Job Market. Adult Education in Israel, 14, 185–213. Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://meyda.education.gov.il/files/AdultEducation/2015/Shirley_ Marom_02.pdf Mizel, O. (2021). ‘I lost my identity in the halls of academia’: Arab students on the use of Arabic in Israeli higher education. Issues in Educational Research, 31(3), 930–951. http://www.iier.org. au/iier31/mizel.pdf Mostafa, M. (2015). Perceiving the Hebrew language as an obstacle for Arab students. In Kh. Arar & I. Keynan (Eds.), Identity, multiculturalism and narrative in Arab education in Israel (pp. 335–363). Pardes (Hebrew). Nashef, H. A. M. (2018). Palestinian culture and the Nakba: Bearing witness (1st ed). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315143835 Park, Y. M., Matsumoto, K., Seo, Y. J., Shinkoda, H., & Park, K. P. (1998). Sleep in relation to age, sex and chronotype in Japanese workers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87,199–215. https:// doi.org/10.2466/pms.1998.87.1.199 Pilecki, A., & Hammack, P. L. (2014). Negotiating the past, imagining the future: Israeli and Palestinian narratives in intergroup dialog. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43, 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.08.019 Reimão, R., Souza, J. C., Gaudioso, C.E.V., Guerra, H.D.C., Alves, H. D. C., Oliveira, J. C. F., Gnobie, N. C. A., & Silverio, D. C. G. (2000). Siestas among Brazilian native Terena adults: A study of daytime napping. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 58(1), 39–44. http://doi.org/10.1590/S0004282X2000000100006

13 The Intercultural Encounter of college students in a Research Seminar

217

Ron, Y., & Maoz, I. (2013). Dangerous stories: Encountering narratives of the other in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 19, 281–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033686 Sagy, S., Adwan, S., & Kaplan, A. (2002). Interpretations of the past and expectations for the future among Israeli and Palestinian youth. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 26–38. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.72.1.26 Shliff, Y., Leviathan, I., & Faran, R. (2007). Careful listening and group conversations: Creating dialogue between members of conflicting multicultural groups. Israel Ministry of Education (Hebrew). Stamatakis, K. A., Kaplan, G. A., & Roberts, R. E. (2007). Short sleep duration across income, education, and race/ethnic groups: Population prevalence and growing disparities during 34 years of follow-up. Annals of Epidemiology, 17(12), 948–955. doi: 10.1016/j. annepidem.2007.07.096

Ran Kuttner

14 Developing Regional Mediational Leadership as a Means for Cultivating Dialogue Abstract: This chapter presents an extended training for Jewish and Arab change-agents in the Wadi A’ra district in Israel. The training and chapter advocates for leadership training while building capacity for dialogue and constructive conflict engagement, thus aiming to make an increased impact and empowering participants, agents of change from among officials and residents, effect social change, in particular in the context of Jewish-Arab relations and the development of a shared society. The first section provides a framework for analysis of leadership as a conflict engagement practice. The second section provides background on the program. The third section presents the training’s curriculum, the fourth section analyses distinctions and parallels between Western mediation approaches with Eastern conflict resolution approaches (Sulcha), and the fifth section elaborates on the practicum and projects participants engaged in as part of their training. The sixth section discusses the challenge of making the usage of the skills acquired in the course sustainable and the seventh and last section raises challenges and dilemmas for further research. Keywords: leadership, training, dialogue, community

Introduction Over a period of three years (2015–2018), the author of this chapter conducted three annual Regional Mediational Leadership trainings, aimed at building capacity for dialogue and constructive conflict management as well as infrastructure for shared living among Jews and Arabs in the Wadi A’ra (WA) region. These trainings were held under the auspices of a prominent NGO (GH) engaged in building shared society among Jews and Arabs in Israel. They aimed to train agents of change from among officials and residents of the various municipalities in that region, who would acquire a variety of conflict management and community dialogue skills as means for social activism, framed as leadership development training. The trainings were part of a larger program led by GH in the region, Shared Communities, in which neighboring Jewish and Arab municipalities worked with GH’s support on constructing partnerships between them (Kuttner, 2019). The intention was that with the skills acquired in the training, the change agents will help reinforce a climate of collaboration and sustained dialogue between and within the communities in which they operate, further developing the recently established partnerships. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-014

220

Ran Kuttner

The Arab minority in Israel consists of 21% of the population. As Palestinians by nationhood, they are part of the Palestinian people, most of them residing in the Palestinian Authority and perceived as a threat to large percentage of Jews in Israel. As Israelis by citizenship, they belong to the Israeli state and wish to be seen as fully-equal citizens and not second-class citizens, as most Arab citizens in Israel feel (Salomon & Issawi, 2009). The chapter describes the strategy and design of the training as a means for building capacity for sustainable social change aimed at strengthening the partnership between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel, mainly in WA, where Jewish and Arab villages exist side by side. as well as the linkage between leadership and conflict resolution – two emerging disciplines in recent decades. It also describes a number of community based projects led by the participants, and lessons learned from this 3-year experience for future development of leadership and sustainable social change agents for the advancement of inclusive, conflict-literate society through conflict engagement practices. The first section provides a framework for analysis of leadership as a conflict engagement practice, offering parallels between the field of Conflict Resolution and Leadership. The second section provides background and context that motivated the initiation of the program. In the third section the training’s curriculum is outlined and as it integrates Western mediation approaches with Eastern conflict resolution approaches (Sulcha), the fourth section analyses distinctions and parallels between the two worldviews and approaches. The fifth section elaborates on the practicum and projects participants engaged in as part of their training and the sixth surfaces questions on how to make that work and usage of the skills acquired in the course sustainable. The seventh and last section raises challenges and dilemmas for further research and for taking into account for subsequent designs of similar trainings. It is important to note that also for us as course leaders and trainers this was an enriching learning process, further developing our own understanding of reconciliation and mediation approaches and how to integrate in-class teaching and its direct implementation into an inclusive educational process. We were part of the learning process, not just the course teachers and trainers. That helped us bring humbleness and inquiry to the training and to set the conditions for a learning environment. The program was supported by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, without which it would not have been possible to develop the model described in this chapter and to execute these three, year-long trainings.

Conflict Specialists as Leaders for Social Change Parallel to the emergence of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a field, the last few decades have seen a growing body of work on leadership as a set of skills and traits that can be taught. Scholars in both fields have explored the intersection between ADR and leadership, identifying what leaders can gain from improving their ability to manage conflict; however, less attention has been given to asking how

14 Developing Regional Mediational Leadership as a Means for Cultivating Dialogue

221

conflict specialists can gain from exposure to leadership theory and practices, and how conflict management training can aim at developing grassroots leadership to effect social change (Kuttner, 2011). Awareness of the parallels between leadership education and conflict management education can serve the cultivation of leadership mindset and skills among participants in extensive conflict management training. It can help equip participants not only with a vision and skills to help parties in a specific conflict to transform adversity into dialogue, but also to develop a vision and skills to lead social change, promoting social cohesion and strengthening social resilience on the community and regional levels. In other words, the realization that training in conflict management has the potential to also improve one’s leadership skills can empower participants to serve as change agents that proactively make use of their newly acquired skills for the benefit of social transformation in areas of conflict. Criticizing traditional and more conventional concepts of leadership, leadership scholarship in recent decades sees the leader in facilitative terms, as a steward who relinquishes control, decentralizes power, and empowers stakeholders on all levels to take ownership of the communal or organizational success (Block, 1993; Schwartz, 2002; Heifetz, 2004; Archer and Cameron, 2013). A major theme that current leadership literature adheres to and which also underlies workplace ADR scholarship and multiparty conflict literature is that the world, and the working environment as part of it, is structured in networks, where people practice interdependency and understand that in order to complete most tasks one needs others’ cooperation (Vandeventer and Mandell, 2011). Both fields emphasize the centrality of the need for improved communication skills: while shifting away from hierarchical paradigms, it is important for leaders to refrain from imposing themselves and their perceived knowledge, and to maintain open communication instead. A good leader is a good listener, someone who identifies others’ needs and interests, and is open to new learning and to eliciting others’ input (Gerzon, 2006). In addition, the tradition of deliberative democracy is gaining increased popularity, and leaders are expected to make growing use of public participation processes and to engage participants on a regular basis in regard to decisions concerning their everyday life as well as in policy making. That requires the development of facilitative skills, which leaders need to apply in order to allow multiplicity of voices to be heard and taken into account in such complex social processes. Facilitative models of leadership see the leader as a convener who brings the various stakeholders to the table and sets the conditions for a consensus-building process (Susskind, 2006). Getting the right people to the table and making sure that their ideas are represented in meaningful ways, getting the process going and refraining from imposing resolutions are central leadership and conflict-facilitation skills (Schwartz, 2002). According to the Collaborative Leadership framework, what makes collaborative leaders unique is that they “[. . .]catalyze, convene, energize, and facilitate others to create visions and solve problems. They create new alliances, partnerships, and forums” (Chrislip, 1994, p. 144).

222

Ran Kuttner

Most of these skills, at least those relating to the actual competence of facilitating dialogue and collaboration, are taught in conflict management trainings; when taught to people committed to social change and in a setting that inspires action along these values and skills, it has the potential to serve grassroots efforts for conflict transformation with potential for prominent impact on a community’s culture. The assumption that led to the development of this unique training is that bringing together social activists or people in positions where they can effect social change (such as public officials from the local governments) around mediation & conflict management training that aims at developing leadership skills, will grant the participants the necessary skills and empower them to be proactive, engage in social activism geared towards bridge-building, consensus building and the promotion of collaboration among individuals and social cohesion among and between groups. Moreover, conducting the training in a mixed Jewish-Arab group of participants, surfacing inter-communal conflicts and tensions alongside the potential embedded in the skill-building to foster conflict transformation and to promote a shared society, further builds capacity among them to become change-agents for the cultivation of better future among Jews and Arabs in Israel.

Conflict leadership training The training was developed as part of a larger framework developed at GH to promote shared society among Jewish and Arab communities in WA. GH is one of the largest NGOs in Israel promoting the existence of a shared, equal society among Jews and Arabs. GH aims to build an inclusive, socially cohesive society in Israel by engaging divided communities in collective action towards the advancement of a sustainable, thriving Israeli democracy based on mutual responsibility, civic equality and a shared vision of the future. Its theory of change is based on the assumption that a shared society cannot be built merely through limited intervention in specific fields; in order to produce significant, sustainable change, there is a need for comprehensive, holistic intervention covering a range of systems (on the municipal, communal, and educational levels) and all age groups. There is a need to build local, regional, and national partnerships that can address the shared interests of Jews and Arabs from neighboring communities, who, without proactive intervention and ongoing facilitation, will remain estranged. Since 2011, GH has been developing and leading the Shared Communities program, in which pairs of neighboring communities, Jewish and Arab, undergo a process of building a sustainable partnership, alongside collaborative, regional programs for representatives of all municipalities in the region. The program aims to create sustainable partnerships between neighboring communities as a basis for evolving a common conception of regionality and as part of creating the required conditions for a shared society in Israel as a whole. Citizens and leaders from diverse social

14 Developing Regional Mediational Leadership as a Means for Cultivating Dialogue

223

backgrounds take part in the program, creating intercommunity collaborations, structures, and activity mechanisms that inform collaborations to advance shared values, aims, and projects. The vision guiding the program is that exemplifying the mutual advantages of collaboration among diverse sectors in socially divided communities through day-to-day experience, will lay the foundations for a shared future and a shared society. Over the past decade, GH has facilitated five partnerships between pairs of communities located along WA, a region populated by a mix of Jewish regional and Arab local municipalities. In each of the five partnerships in the Shared Communities program, joint leadership forums committed to the partnership were established, and the needs of the two neighboring communities were mapped to reveal mutual interests and promising areas for cooperation. Collaborative teams were created on both the municipal and the grassroots levels, working to advance the common goals identified in fields such as education, infrastructure, business, ecology, art and culture, capacity building, sports, and more. Many of the projects managed within the Shared Communities programs required process oriented skills and a dialogue driven approach that are not always common among the people leading the projects in the communities. At the early stages, GH provided the professional support needed as conveners and facilitators. However, for the program to be sustainable in the long run without ongoing professional support, GH’s exit-strategy was to move toward capacity building within the communities. GH envisioned the training to be central in the capacity building efforts, aspiring to train the participants to gradually assume these roles and serve as the facilitators, conveners, and leaders of the diverse shared society efforts in the region.

The Training Curriculum The Regional Mediation, Sulcha, and Dialogue Based Leadership Training was designed to construct a network of qualified, conflict transformation change-agents who would serve as active participants in various shared society projects initiated by the management of the partnerships of the Shared Communities project, as well as initiatives of their own to further help promote the practice of shared society among neighboring communities in the region. The target audience of the training were social activists and citizens who are well respected in their communities, who have good interpersonal skills and records, and who have shown interest in Jewish-Arab collaborations. We encouraged participation of individuals with backgrounds in community work, social work, peacebuilding, community organizing, and social entrepreneurship. The heads of the various municipalities supported the program and helped identify potential candidates among either the municipal employees or residents with potential to assume leadership roles. This was done with the intention to make use of their newly acquired qualifications for the benefit of their respective communities, their inter-communal relations, and the region.

224

Ran Kuttner

In each of the trainings we made sure to have an equal, or almost equal number of Jews and Arabs as well as of men and women. Overall the program consisted of three trainings, 10 months each, with 64 individuals altogether who graduated. Each training consisted of 150 hours, the first 100 in-class and 50-hour practicum to apply the learnings in community-based dialogue-driven programs. The starting point for the training was a certifying mediators’ course, a 60-hour training that aims at providing participant basic skills in interpersonal conflict management. As it covered the entire mediation training, participants were granted a certified mediator diploma at the end of the training, yet it was expanded to meet the goals of the program. The 60-h mediation course was extended, as participants in the program underwent extensive training in mediation, Sulcha, multi-party consensus-building processes, community dialogue, and leadership, with the aim of forming the basis for sustainable maintenance of the collaboration between communities, providing professional support to the partnerships’ steering committees in various dialogue processes and by enabling self-sufficient handling of conflicts. The training was inclined towards community mediation. Various units on community mediation were added to the typical common mediation curriculum, and guest speakers were invited from the National Community Mediation Center. Participants learned how to map community disputes, how to conduct intakes in community based conflicts, how to analyze community based interpersonal and multi-stakeholder conflicts, and what it takes to initiate conflict-related and consensus-building initiatives on the community level. In addition, the training included a section on community dialogue and on capacity building for engaging in dialogue in various community settings (Sadan, 2009; Shemer, 2013). It included emphasis on the concept of social cohesion and on making the linkage between the increase in cohesiveness and social resilience (Aall and Crocker, 2019), emphasizing the importance of building capacity to manage disputes in collaborative manner and through inclusive social processes as means for developing a cohesive and resilient society on both the community and the regional levels. Upon culmination of the mediation training, participants were introduced to consensus building practices, learning how to conduct conflict assessment processes (Susskind and Thomas-Larmer, 1999) and gaining a taste of the work of the facilitator in multi-party disputes in which large-group facilitation is needed. These skills require separate long training, and in the context of the described course it was possible to expose participants to these practices as well as to public participation frameworks, to ‘whet the appetite’ to additional possibilities in their communities. It is important to note that in the Arab communities in particular, embedded in more hierarchical and patriarchal traditions, it was important to expose participants to the values of deliberative, participatory democracy and to practices of citizen-engagement (Ansel and Gash, 2007), with the idea in mind that as leaders for social change they will be able to challenge the more hierarchical approaches and offer deliberation and consensus-based decision making in their communities.

14 Developing Regional Mediational Leadership as a Means for Cultivating Dialogue

225

Another central component in the training was leadership, introducing participants to facilitative approaches to leadership (Schwartz, 2002) and to the parallels between consensus-building and current understandings of constructive leadership (Kuttner, 2011). Throughout the second part of the training, participants were invited to reflect on their leadership role in their communities and in the region, and to think of a concrete initiative for implementation in the later part of the training – the practicum.

West Meets East: Mediation and Sulcha As mentioned, the training was built around a certifying mediator course. The typical mediation model introduced to students in these courses is an interest-based framework adopted from the Harvard model of interest-based negotiation, where parties are assisted to shift from adversarial, distributive, positional bargaining to an integrative, value creating mode of interaction, sharing their interests and needs rather than claiming their positions (Lewicki, 1985; Mnookin et al., 2000; Frenkel and Stark, 2008). However, importing a Western-based approach to the described context has a number of downsides: it lacks cultural awareness, failing to take into account the traditions of the Arab society as to how conflicts are resolved and transformed. This serves as a barrier on two levels: first, challenging Arab participants to cultivate and introduce to their communities an approach that they may find irrelevant and difficult to adopt; second, by teaching a Western-based approach we continue to ignore power relations among majority’s culture and the minority’s culture: not only is the training in Hebrew, the minority group is asked to comply with traditions that are different from their own while showing less respect to their tradition and history. In addition, importing a Western-based model is a missed opportunity to synthesize the different approaches and develop conflict-management mechanisms unique to the area; there is a need to adapt to the concrete Jewish-Arab fabric in WA and to support the construction of intervention models that fit the jointly constructed tradition and culture. This is shared society in action: creating the terms and setting the ground for joint development of values, of constructing new shared traditions and culture, creating a joint space where everyone feels a strong sense of ownership and belonging. Also, by introducing Sulcha, the traditional Arab framework for reconciliation, we were able to both expose the Jewish participants to the Arab tradition of dispute resolution and open new opportunities for dialogue in the room during the training. It provided an opportunity for Arab participants to educate the Jewish participants and for all the participants to jointly develop group-cohesion and sense of bonding. It should be noted that the training was an unusual mediation training also in the sense that among its goals was the construction of a community among participants, as future participants of a regional network with the shared goal of cultivating dialogue and constructive conflict resolution in the area. Therefore, the engagement

226

Ran Kuttner

among participants and the creation of a learning community was of high importance. Also, as exposure to the other culture and developing empathy towards participants from the other social group were central – doing so around learning the topics of the training – the traditions of conflict resolution and means of reconciliation – was of value. Sulcha is a transformative and restorative customary justice practice, designed to facilitate reconciliation between disputing parties and clans (extended families). Sulcha, which means ‘settlement’ in Arabic, from the root ‘forgiveness’, is a 7-step process that makes use of mediation and arbitration tools (Pely, 2014). The Sulcha process is usually approached from a folkloristic perspective, focusing on ritual and ceremony, lacking in-depth analysis of the process and of how the mix of mediation and arbitration tools effect change and contribute to the transformation of disputants’ attitudes. Sulcha also offers insight into how to reconcile a fierce desire to avenge a perceived collective injury to the clan’s honor with a willingness to forgive and move on with life, through a restoration of the victim’s clan’s sense of honor. Sulcha has much to offer Western mediation frameworks on a number of levels that this chapter cannot expand on. It is worth noting that since Sulcha is a more relationally-inclined process that the interest-based approach, the course also served as a good opportunity to introduce aspects of relational models for mediation, such as the Transformative Approach (Bush and Folger, 1994) and the Narrative Approach (Winslade and Monk, 2000). The Narrative Approach comprises elements that are close in spirit to the Eastern tradition, as the emphasis on listening to people’s stories and their narrative-braiding (Cobb, 2013) is of importance in both traditions. The course included a unit/4hour workshop in narrative approach to community mediation by a leading scholar who specializes and teaches narrative mediation. Sulcha was taught with the help of a number of distinguished guest-speakers, who are versed in this practice in Israel. Throughout the training the participants were challenged to reflect on the added values of each of the conflict-resolution traditions presented in the course, to understand how values unique to each tradition meet and merge, and explore in which situations elements of each can be of value to help move the conflict-interaction forward constructively. As the mediation training consists of a large number of long mediation simulations, role-plays whereby participants gain experience actually mediating, we took advantage of the opportunity to develop simulations from both cultures as well as cross-culture encounters. This also provided exposure to both cultures and learning how to fit different reconciliation models in different situations. In the simulation exercises, it was fascinating to witness how challenging it was for Jewish participants to mediate in Arab-based simulations and vice versa: this offered important learning opportunities for participants. Among a number of definitions for empathy, Carl Rogers described it as ‘entering someone else’s home and feeling comfortable’ in it (Rogers, 1956). The simulations provided unique opportunities for the participants to function as mediators in conflicts of the other participants’ culture homes and to reflect on the challenges involved. It also provided opportunities to reflect to what extent the

14 Developing Regional Mediational Leadership as a Means for Cultivating Dialogue

227

Western approach provides new tools that enrich the more traditional toolbox of Sulcha. More deeply, it helped participants immerse in cultural settings and norms different from their own and to experience the challenges “from within”, conflicts and culturally-based dilemmas participants from the other culture experience. This meant analyzing the differences between not only the different cultures from the outside, but also the differences in performing within them – as parties to a conflict as well as conflict specialists striving to transform the conflict. In that respect, the training provided relational settings and profound opportunities to connect and share experiences & social dilemmas. Participants reported the following particular gains: joint-learning; conducting simulations and role-plays together, some designed to portray the cultural traits of both cultures, were meaningful and helped them experientially develop appreciation of the other culture and awareness of the culture; distinguished Arab guest-lecturers who brought various angles on Sulcha and detailed description of Arab conflict management; joint visits to various Jewish and Arab neighboring villages, connected to the context and the themes of the course; the long, 5-h meetings, which included breaks and shared dining; the growing mutual respect among participants in the lengthy duration of the course.

The Practicum: From Theory to Practice As the training was meant to build capacity for social change and to bridge between in-class learning and social activism, the last part of the training consisted of fieldwork designed to encourage the participants to implement what they had learned and gain hands-on experience. Throughout the training, participants were exposed to various initiatives taking place in their municipalities as part of the Shared Communities program, and for their practicum they were encouraged to trace an issue in need of dialogue-driven capacity building, to conduct a thorough assessment and develop a feasible workplan. As mentioned, our model stresses the involvement of the municipality heads, who support initiative in the three circles – within communities, between a pair of partner communities, and at the regional level. Participants received professional support from GV and institutional support from the municipalities. In this respect, the practicum is a grassroots, bottom-up approach with institutional support. The practicum comprised three meetings – at the beginning, middle, and end of the four-month period, for peer consultation and reflection upon the challenges participants encountered in the process of implementation. Where possible, GV made use of its connections in the municipalities to assist participants with their projects. With the understanding that implementation of community projects deserves time beyond the four months possible within the scope of the training, participants were invited to maintain the community of practice established during the course and the practicum, and to meet at GV together with the course instructors who also helped

228

Ran Kuttner

them design and execute their practicum projects throughout the year following the training, to assist their efforts to promote sustainable change via their initiatives. The training instructors were also available to then throughout that second year to consult and support their efforts. At the end of the practicum phase, at the graduation ceremony where the participants received the mediation certifications, we celebrated not only the end of the training but the achievements of the participants in their practicum projects. Each participant (in some cases – pairs or triads who worked jointly on a project) presented their projects: what they have achieved up to that point, lessons learned, and how they have planned to continue the implementation in the following year. Among the projects initiated by the participants were: 1. Community dialogue projects – the future of the education system in one of the communities – fair election management in a community – bridging gaps between senior citizens and youth – establishing and creating a diverse social activity center at a community center creating a bridge between the health and civic systems at one municipality. 2. Educational projects – implementing the language of mediation at an elementary school (as part of the promotion of mediation culture in the city), – holding meetings of Jewish and Arab schoolchildren (to help establish ties between Jewish and Arab schools), – a Young Mediational Leadership course for Arab high school students, – establishing a mediation center at a Jewish regional school, – training the student council to serve as mediators at Jewish and Arab middle schools, – dialogue on the subject of parent-teacher relationships and formulating consensus for collaboration at an elementary school. 3. Regional projects – integrating mediation practices among Arab women in the region, – building bridges between Jews and Arabs through a joint art course, – a Jewish-Arab public participation process regarding the enforcement of the Fisheries Law in Israel by the Nature and Parks Authority, – building a dialogue and a cultural bridge between partner Jewish and Arab communities through storytelling by community members inspired by the narrative approach,

14 Developing Regional Mediational Leadership as a Means for Cultivating Dialogue

– –

229

setting up a joint regional mechanism comprising most of the entities in the region for the establishment of community gardens/parks/forests, creating joint tourism packages for tourism professionals at a regional council.

Senior officials and key community activists who participated in the trainings initiated the establishment of mediation and dialogue centers in Arab municipalities – institutions that have not yet existed in Arab municipalities in Israel (unlike Jewish municipalities, about 40 maintain mediation and dialogue centers). In a growing number of municipalities throughout Israel, volunteer mediators operate at community mediation and dialogue centers that serve their communities in interpersonal and intracommunity conflicts and as facilitators in the process of building multi-participant accords with the goal of helping improve social cohesion and creating the conditions for dialogic dynamics among and within the various groups in the community.

Sustainability As mentioned, among its goals, the aim of the training was to establish a regional network of mediators who act as change agents in the region. Participants in the process received unique, comprehensive, and extensive training, designed especially for joint community and inter-community activity in the spirit of mediation and dialogue, with the emphasis on reflection on their own values and social vocation. Jewish participants expressed their fascination with learning about Sulcha and the tradition that underpins it, as well as to witness the challenges of older Arab participants to put behind hierarchical presupposition in order to serve as mediators who facilitate dialogue rather than arbitrators or highly-evaluative mediators who offer solutions. Also, participants were enriched by the internal debate between older Arab participants and younger Arab participants, which surfaced the generational gap and changes the Arab society in Israel. It was also enriching to the Arab participants themselves, who were able to surface and engage constructively inner-conflicts and gaps. Jewish participants had space to surface their own challenges regarding diverse voices within the Jewish society on Jewish-Arab relations and the difficulties of promoting partnerships. The growing trust and the shared space provided room to expose dilemmas and inner-conflicts. Thus, participants from both groups allowed themselves to portray complex rather than coherent in-group voices. For example, Jews were able to present also the voices of intolerance or mistrust that are heard within the inner Jewish discourse, influencing their ability to construct a shared society among Jews and Arabs in Israel. In order to promote sustainable change, participants took part in a practicum process whereby they were encouraged to take action and were professionally and institutionally supported in these actions beyond the time frame of the training. With the infrastructure of the Shared Communities program, graduates were encouraged to get involved and partake in the various partnerships-oriented initiatives.

230

Ran Kuttner

Moreover, following the training and as part of the participants’ professional development and facilitation, GV maintained an ongoing guided forum, with monthly meetings, for learning and reflecting upon the hands-on experience of the participants in daily life, along with the challenges they faced in the implementation and assimilation of the language of mediation in various spheres of life. After the three year-long trainings, GH created a Mediation and Sulcha Covenant, signed by all the municipality heads in the WA region. The goal of the Covenant was to raise awareness and make a declarative commitment by the municipality heads to further expand the use of the mediation & Sulcha language and practices for the benefit of the residents, and to build more resilient communities and region with the help of the graduates. These are all efforts to set conditions for continuity and sustainable change in an environment and times that cry for more social cohesion, solidarity and inclusion.

Lessons learned from the evaluations of the training The trainings were accompanied by professional evaluations. Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire at the end of the in-class component and prior to the practicum, and interviews were conducted at the end of the course. 57 (30 Arabs and 27 Jews, 52% women and 48% men, average age 50) out of 64 participants in the three trainings completed the questionnaires. In the first year more than half (56%) of the participants were involved in the Shared Communities programs, while in the second and third years less than half (31%) were involved during the training. The questionnaires consisted of 27 questions, asking the participants to rate on a scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree) and respond to four open questions. The main findings are displayed in Figures 14.1–14.4. The input from participants following the first 100 hours and prior to the practicum demonstrated that most of the program’s short-term goals were met and that longterm, sustainable results require perseverance and patience. In answering the question to what extent the course was informative with regard to the work of the mediator, the score among Arabs was 97% and among Jews 75%. The same question with regard to community mediation received lower scores (83% among Arabs, 68% among Jews), and also with regard to the actual work of the mediator in building partnerships among neighboring Jewish and Arab communities (87% among Arabs and 73% among Jews). Following the course personal interviews were conducted. The participants reported that they felt more confident with regard to the complexities involving community-based and partnership-based projects, due to their involvement in the practicum. Participants agreed that there is a need for additional training for handling such complex processes. In responding to the question to what extent the training contributed to their performance in various life circles, participants reported at the end of the first 100 hours, a major contribution to their personal lives (93% among Arabs, 88% among Jews), to

Participants who repoeted Agrre or Strongly Agree

14 Developing Regional Mediational Leadership as a Means for Cultivating Dialogue

100%

231

97%

80%

87%

83%

75%

73%

68%

60% 40% 20% 0% The training was informative with regard to the work of the mediator

Arabs

The training was informative with regard to community mediation:

Jews

The training was informative with regard to the mediator's work in building partnerships among neighboring Jewish and Arab communities:

Figure 14.1: General evaluation of the training.

Participants who repoeted Agrre or Strongly Agree

their work environment (93% and 89%). The 2nd question showed a small, yet a notable difference between Jews and Arabs with regard to their involvement in the community (87% and 60%) and regional (72% and 64%) levels.

100%

Arabs

93%

88%

93%

89%

87% 72%

80% 60%

64%

60% 40% 20% 0% The course contributed to my personal life

The course contributed to my work environment

The course contributed to my involvement on the community level

The course contributed my to involvement on the regional level

Jews

Figure 14.2: The contribution of the training to various living circles.

In responding to the question if the training added to their motivation to take action in various life circles, regarding the creation of spaces for dialogue in their communities, showed that 89% of the Arab participants and 73% of the Jewish participants claimed

232

Ran Kuttner

Participants who repoeted Agrre or Strongly Agree

that they agree or strongly agree. Regarding the question if the training added to their motivation to take action in the partnership between their community and the neighboring community, 78% of the Arabs and 63% of the Jews reported that they agree or strongly agree; regarding whether the training added to their motivation to take action in regional disputes, 64% of the Arabs and 63% of the Jews agreed or strongly agreed.

100%

Arabs

80%

89% 73%

78% 63%

64%

63%

60% 40% 20% 0% The training added The training added to my motivation to to my motivation to take action in creating take action in the spaces for dialogue partnership between in my community their community and the neighboring community

The training added to my motivation to take action in regional disputes

Jews

Figure 14.3: The contribution of the training to participants’ motivation.

Participants were also asked about the contribution of the training to their communication capabilities within their communities. Eighty three percent of the Arab participants and 72% of the Jewish participants reported that the training improved their ability to manage conflicts in the community they are part of; With regard to their ability to bring disputants to dialogue with each other, there was a big gap, as 86% of the Arabs and 62% of the Jews, respectively strongly agree or agree that the training provided significant change. With regard to their ability to bring about change and influence conflict management patterns in their communities, 83% of the Arab participants reported that they agree or strongly agree that that the training brought change, while among Jewish participants only 70% agreed or strongly agreed. Following the practicum, participants reported a growing capacity also with regard to the latter, due to the experience gained in the practicum. At the end of the training, after the practicum experience, the level of confidence regarding community and regional involvement was reported to be higher. Arabs were more inclined than Jews towards contributing to the Jewish-Arab partnerships and Jews were more motivated than Arabs with regard to inner-community work. There was a gap between Arab and Jewish participants regarding the increase in their capacity to manage conflicts constructively in various life circles: Arabs reported higher levels of increase than Jewish participants. Also, with regard to changes in their

14 Developing Regional Mediational Leadership as a Means for Cultivating Dialogue

233

Participants who repoeted Agrre or Strongly Agree

100% 86%

83 % 80%

83%

72%

70% 62 %

60% 40% 20% 0%

Arabs

The trainings improved The trainings improved The trainings improved my ability to manage my ability to bring my ability to bring conflicts in my disputants to dialogue change and influence community with each other conflict management patterns in my Jews community

Figure 14.4: The skill building effect of the training.

attitudes in community-related conflicts (interpersonal communication, how they analyze and assess conflicts, the ability to identify situations in need of dialogue, their ability to bring people to discuss issues that matter, their ability to affect the social discourse), Arabs reported higher level of capacity increase than the Jewish participants. In reply to an open question regarding their further needs, many participants reported that more experience is needed and many indicated that institutional support, in the sense of establishing conflict resolution forums and institutions in the communities (such as community mediation and dialogue centers), is important, stating that they wish to take action in further institutionalization processes. Also, further education was reported as important – both on conflict-related professional studies (in particular regarding the Sulcha processes) as well as on their communities’ needs. The relationships established in the courses were of high importance and participants emphasized their wish to further develop their relations with their fellow learners, as well as gain more knowledge and familiarity with the respective culture. A wish to take part in the various Shared Communities initiatives and become more involved in the program was reported. While implementing lessons learned in everyday life-circles, the socially inclined practice on the communal and regional levels require institutionalization that, 2–3 years later, at the time of writing this paper, was not achieved as envisioned. The various Shared Society initiatives did not materialize to ongoing organized structures. Participants took action locally and sporadically but not as part of a vibrant network or community of mediators. Yet, it is our assumption that even though institutionalization has not yet been achieved, the contributions of the program to the development of conflict-versed leadership are meaningful. Participants acquired skills that they

234

Ran Kuttner

implement in their daily lives in various circles, bring a changed attitude towards conflict engagement and towards Jewish-Arab relations in the area. Some of them hold public positions, others are socially active in areas not necessarily related to conflict engagement, though with the acquired skills and realization of leadership, they set an example for constructive conflict management and know how to implement lessons learned in their actions. For sustainable achievements there is a need for ongoing professional and structural support: institutionalization is needed on the municipality level, developing community-based mediation and dialogue centers within the municipalities, and having professional guidance to help support further development of proficiency needed to manage complex community and inter-community based conflicts. In addition, such mediation centers can develop educational programs, as part of a long-term goal to transform non-constructive and violent approaches to conflict that unfortunately are highly common.

Conclusion Bernie Mayer, in Beyond Neutrality, suggests that we should expand our vision regarding the roles we can perform as conflict specialists in order to become more relevant. Mayer suggests that conflict specialists become irrelevant to major social issues because they perceive their roles too narrowly (Mayer, 2004). The training described above was designed to help conflict specialists expand their vision and practical possibilities, as well as ours as trainers and scholars in the field, regarding the roles we can perform to be relevant and promote social change. An important takeaway is that the field of mediation and conflict engagement should further develop the synthesis between leadership and conflict engagement, supporting mediators and conflict specialists to acquire skills that are not necessarily taught in current mediation trainings. It is constructive for the future of conflict engagement as a profession and for the future of mediators as social change agents to have the skills and mindset of social transformation beyond and outside the mediation room, to help develop social cohesion in fragmented societies. This requires learning beyond the scope of one or two trainings. It requires disciplinary education that combines theory and practice, group in-class learning and field work, that goes beyond ordinary trainings. In addition, the joint Jewish-Arab training, which was extraordinary in both its duration and in integrating skill-building in conflict management/community dialogue, while surfacing challenging issues and in practice focusing on implementing the very same skills in the training space, helped participants develop profound intercultural empathy and acquaintance, not only with the other culture but also with regard to the challenges of intercultural and cross-cultural conflict transformation. For the participants, the course was not theoretical but rather existential on many levels; as they live in a region where they meet these challenges daily; as they develop skills geared to their

14 Developing Regional Mediational Leadership as a Means for Cultivating Dialogue

235

professional occupation and vocation; and as they were making a sincere effort to practice, experience and reflect on their own journey of cohering as a joint JewishArab team, a team with conflict engagement skills that they are empowered and encouraged to continue making the effort to implement in the region.

References Aall, & Crocker, C. A. (2019). Building resilience and social cohesion in conflict. Global Policy, 10(S2), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12681 Ansell, & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4),543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 Archer, D. and Cameron, A. (2013). Collaborative leadership: Building relationships, handling conflict, sharing Control. Routledge. Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. Berrett-Koehler. Bush, & Folger, J. P. (1994). The promise of mediation: responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass. Chrislip, & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership: how citizens and civic leaders can make a difference (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass. Cobb, S. (2013) Narrative ‘Braiding’ and the role of public officials in transforming the public’s conflicts. Narrative and Conflict: Exploration of Theory and Practice, 1(1),3–30. Frenkel, D. and Stark, J. (2008) The practice of mediation. Kluwer. Gerzon, M. (2006). Leading through conflict. Harvard Business Press. Heifetz, R. (2004). Leading without easy answers. Belknap Press at Harvard University Press. Kuttner. (2011). Conflict specialists as leaders: Revisiting the role of the conflict specialist from a leadership perspective. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 29(2),103–126. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/crq.20042 Kuttner. (2019). Partnership between Jewish and Arab communities for the construction of shared society: Givat Haviva model. Givat Haviva. Lewicki R. and Saunders, D. (1985). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill. Mayer, B. (2004). Beyond Neutrality. Jossey-Bass. Mnookin R., Peppet, S. and Tulumello, A. (2000). Beyond winning: Negotiating to create value in deals and disputes. Harvard University Press. Pely. (2014). How sulha works: explaining customary conflict resolution within northern israel’s arab community. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Rogers, C. (1956). Becoming a person. The University of Texas. Sadan, E. (2009). Community work: Methods for social change. Hakibutz Hameuhad [In Hebrew]. Salomon, G., & Issawi, M. (2009). The public committee’s report for forming policy on education for shared living between Jews and Arabs in Israel. [in Hebrew]. Schwartz, R.M. (2002). The skilled facilitator: A comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches. Jossey-Bass. Shemer, O. (Ed.). (2013). Community mediation and dialogue centers social innovation through community initiatives. Ministry of Social Welfare [In Hebrew]. Susskind L. and Cruikshank, J. (2006). Breaking Robert’s rules: The new way to Run Your Meeting, Building Consensus, and Getting Results. Oxford University Press.

236

Ran Kuttner

Susskind, L. and Tomas-Larmer, J. (1999). Conducting a Conflict Assessment, pp. 99–136 in L. Susskind, S. McKearnan and J. Tomas-Larmer (Eds.), The Consensus Building Handbook. Sage. Vandeventer, P. and Mandell, M. (2011). Networks that work: A practitioner’s guide to managing Networked Action. Hershey. Winslade, J. and Monk, G. (2000). Narrative mediation: A new approach to conflict resolution. JosseyBass.

Linda Jakob Sadeh

15 Contact at work: Appraising the effect of the confrontation and Joint-Project models on intra-organizational dynamics, workers’ experience and political consciousness Abstract: What type of intergroup contact should be pursued to fulfill the promise of workplaces as peacebuilding spaces, where ongoing contact between groups in conflict lead to changes in attitudes, emotions and power-relations? Answering this question, I build on two separate studies: a 15-month-ethnography in an organization that applies the Joint-Projects Model and an interview-based research, in a work context that applies the Confrontation Model. I found that contact based on the Joint-Projects Model allowed for a harmonious encounter between the sides most of the time, blurring national boundaries, yet maintaining societal powerrelations and negative, concealed emotions that erupted in political or violent times. Contact based on the confrontation model has changed members’ worldviews and perceptions yet reproduced the discourse of conflict and hindered workrelationships, making its adoption by other work organizations less likely. I discuss the implications of these findings for practitioners and future research. Keywords: Jewish-Palestinian conflict, work, contact theory, diversity Working together in a context of intractable conflict, should diverse teams engage with the conflict that divides them, or should they escape it? Understanding workplaces as important settings for peacebuilding, where long-term intergroup contact is enabled and joint interests and professional identities form, what type of contact should be pursued to push forward a macro-level, societal change? I build on two separate research endeavors, and a comparison between them, to attempt answering these questions: The first is a 15-month-ethnography in an organization that applies the Joint-Projects Model (Maoz, 2011; 2012) for contact. Within this work-context, the organization was viewed as an island of peace, and national conflict as irrelevant to everyday work-life. The second is an interview-based research, in a work context that applies the Confrontation Model (Maoz, 2011; 2012). In that context, intense conflicts between Jewish and Palestinian employees, and direct examinations of power relations, were part and parcel of the training and working relationships. For both organizations, peace was a core mission, differentiating them from other types of organizations. Yet, their characteristics – representing a high level of diversity and cultural competency, which are so rare

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-015

238

Linda Jakob Sadeh

in the Israeli divided context – make them unique contexts to examine the next step for diverse organizations – embracing adequate contact interventions that facilitate social change. Through my findings, I show that both models manage to disrupt some qualities of the larger scale conflict between the nations, while maintaining others. Contact that is based on the Joint-Projects Model allows for a seemingly harmonious encounter between the sides yet maintains societal power-relations and negative concealed emotions, thus duplicating the characteristics of the larger scale conflict between the nations. Contact that is based on the Confrontation Model is extremely meaningful. It changes world views and perceptions, but at the same time reproduces the discourse of conflict, hindering work-relationships, making its adoption by other work organizations less likely. I discuss the implications of these findings for practitioners and future research.

Theoretical Overview – Intergroup Contact at Work Contact between groups in conflict has been thought of for many years as a way to persue social change and conflict resolution. Aiming to understand whether, in what ways, and under what conditions contact interventions may successfully promote change, a large body of scholarship has focused on the effect of contact on reducing prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011), shaping narratives, beliefs and behaviors (Biton & Salomon, 2006; Halabi & Sonnenschein, 2004; Ross, 2014), increasing awareness of the perspectives and needs of the other group (Ron & Maoz, 2013), generating greater trust, empathy and forgiveness for past wrongdoings (Bar-On & Kassem, 2004), instigating identity change (Ross, 2014), ensuring greater liking between contact partners and ultimately greater liking of the outgroup as a whole (Graf & Paolini, 2017), increasing participants’ ability to criticize their environment (Abu-Nimer, 1999), applying equality and social justice throughout the contact intervention (Maoz, 2005), and mobilizing collective action to oppose the hegemonic order (Dixon et al., 2005; 2007). While the extant work on contact in contexts of intergroup conflict focuses on planned and structured encounters, it has barely touched upon its daily lived experience (Dixon et al., 2005; 2007). The relative neglect of contact in the context of work organizations is particularly surprising (Darr, 2018). Since work is a dominant arena in peoples’ lives, where people spend most of their days forming identities and world views, and since work organizations can potentially alter the disadvantaged position of people based on their ethnicity, religion, race or nationality, they serve as crucial contexts for investigation. Although scarce, investigations of contact at work have begun to accumulate over the past decade, particularly in the Jewish-Palestinian case, where a history and current state of hostility, violence and asymmetrical power relations occupy a

15 Contact at work

239

central position in society and imprint upon every aspect of life (Abu-Nimer, 1999; Halperin & Bar-Tal, 2011; Maoz, 2012). This line of research has mainly delved into unmanaged contact, that is – contact between Jews and Palestinians that occurs at work, without facilitation or guidance by management or specialized professionals. From this growing body of literature, we learn that antagonism, stereotypes and prejudice do not change at work (Desivilya, 1998), that experiences of implicit or explicit discrimination and tensions (Darr, 2018; 2020; Desivilya & Raz 2015; Raz-Rotem et al., 2020) and ‘everyday racism’ (Shoshana, 2016) are maintained in these working environments. Benefits of coexistence, if prevail, are confined to the ‘local’ boundaries of joint work (Desivilya, 1998, 2020; Desivilya & Raz, 2015; Desivilya Syna, 2016), but are not generalized to people’s overall beliefs, attitudes or feelings. Moreover, misunderstanding of the other side’s perspective and mutual blame for inequality and unfairness intensify the negative perceptions of the other group, thus perpetuating the societal and political-level intergroup conflict. These processes intensify in times of violent incidents associated with the national conflict or political national holidays (Darr, 2018; 2020; Desivilya Syna 2016; 2020). Finally, managerial ideology may use ethno-national identities or values to promote organizational control, while preserving ethno-national-based power relations (Ailon & Kunda, 2009; Drori, 2000). Current literature also sheds some light on how persons handle these intergroup tensions at work, suggesting that the need to settle ideology and practice is greater for Palestinian workers (Bekerman, 2014); that awareness level regarding the complex social context varies across organizational members, ensuing an array of responses – from “engaging, downplaying or overlooking the intricacies” (Desivilya et al., 2017: 96); and that the underprivileged group members may handle the situation by employing a ‘split ascription’ – differentiating between “the cooperative work environment and the discriminatory structural elements of the employing organization” (Darr, 2018: 831). Current studies thus suggest that while intergroup harmony is mostly preserved on the surface of things, perhaps defending the persons involved and the organizations at hand from fantasized disasters, psychological and sociological obstacles of peace are preserved as well. Although revealing, some important lacunas exist in this body of work. The vast majority of these studies are interview-based (see Beckerman, 2014 as an exception). Consequently, studies have not paid attention to how contact is managed at work, nor have they studied particular interventions aiming to influence contact in work organizations. In some cases, structural interventions have been studied (e.g. Darr, 2020), but we lack knowledge about the relational processes between coworkers. Thus, while we know that unmanaged intergroup contact in the context of protracted asymmetrical conflict is not beneficial for peace promotion, what types of effects may interventions that aim for equality, diversity and inclusion have on group relations? And how does the type of contact mitigate the effects that were found?

240

Linda Jakob Sadeh

Models of contact as an inspiration To examine these questions concerning contact at work organizations, I lean on Maoz’s (2011; 2012) classification of contact into four categories, which have thus far been applied in the context of structured dialogue encounters. Two categories, or models: Coexistence and Joint Projects, are based on the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), according to which contact, under conditions of equality, creates an opportunity to reduce prejudice, thus rectifying inter-group hostility and promoting notions of cooperation and intergroup harmony (Maoz, 2012). Both models focus on interpersonal relationships and strive towards the creation of friendships and even intimacy, with the Coexistence Model stressing common grounds, and the JointProjects Model emphasizing the creation of a super-ordinate identity via the shared activity that participants are committed to (Maoz, 2011). Either way, both models understand contact as means to create a common identity. In contrast, the Confrontation Model emphasizes the differentiation between identities, and the responsibility of each side in the shared context. Drawing from post-colonial literature (Fanon, 1980/ 1952; Memmi, 2013/1957; Said, 1978), theory of ethnic identity development (Helms, 1995; Phinney, 1996) and critical pedagogy (Freire, 2018/1970) (Friedberg, 2007), it directs us to examine how societal-based power relations are reconstructed in the ‘here and now’ of the intergroup contact, and acknowledges the conflict that arises between the sides as a source for learning. Lastly, the Narrative Model for contact (Albeck et al., 2002; Bar-On & Kassem, 2004) combines an inter-personal approach to contact with an emphasis on group identity, placing ‘story telling’ as a major intervention technique through which people may both experience closeness and empathy towards each other, and learn about the differences and embedded intergroup conflicts. Deciphering intergroup contact at work organizations through the lens of the models, it becomes apparent that the various organizations that have been studied so far either do not invest thought or effort in handling the challenges of contact, or assume a Joint-Projects approach, hoping to create a harmonious encounter between the conflicting identity groups that is based on their common professional and organizational identities. Indeed, this approach has recently been advocated for (Abu-Asba, 2020) – based on a survey that shows both Palestinian and Jewish workers’ lack of will to have ‘political conversations’ at the workplace. Still, we do not know how the implementation of various models will affect these stances. In other words, it is not clear whether and how the various models depicted by Maoz (2011) serve as an intermediary variable, affecting the results of contact at work between members of groups in conflict. More generally, working together in a context of intractable conflict, should diverse teams engage in the conflict that divides them, or should they escape it? Assuming that contact at the workplace between groups in conflict is detrimental for bottom-up peace building processes, it is important to understand how it should be managed, and what the accomplishments and prices are for employing each of Maoz’s models.

15 Contact at work

241

Societal and Organizational Research Context Shedding light on these questions, I present findings from two studies which were conducted in the context of joint work of Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel. While Jews and Palestinians share citizenship or residency in Israel, the intractable conflict between the two nations bears its effects and materializes in divergent lines of historic narratives, identifications, and ideologies, as well as violence, separation between the sides in most areas of life, and economic and political a-symmetry and discrimination (Abu-Nimer, 1999; Maoz, 2012). Throughout the past two decades, this social-political rapture has deteriorated, reflecting an expansion of a Jewishnationalistic agenda that excludes and discriminates against Palestinian citizens. This was seen in voting patterns during parliamentary elections, in the introduction of the Jewish Nation-State Bill, the Nakba Law, the struggle to replace judicial leaders (Jamal, 2020), Israel’s tighter control in Palestinian territories in the West Bank, and more. Interestingly, in the course of these same years, and particularly throughout the past decade, we have witnessed a shift in the employment sphere, with considerable efforts invested in improving and enhancing the integration of Arabs within predominantly Jewish organizations, within professional and managerial positions. Thus, although contact between Jewish and Palestinian colleagues is still scarce, it is growing in number. The two organizational contexts that I have studied serve as complementary contexts to examine the questions I posed above. One organization, ‘Together’ (pseudonym), is located in a mixed city and aims to provide its residents with community and cultural services while bringing the two nations together. From its many external manifestations, it was clear that it operated predominantly according to the contact hypothesis and via a strategy aiming at keeping distance from the conflictual aspects of the encounter. A 2.5-meter-sign welcoming ‘Together’s visitors to the premises serves as an example. Its declaration: “Here is a place in which brotherhood of nations and an atmosphere of peace prevail, a place where the conflict is forgotten and unity fostered1” testifies to both the value of coexistence, and the demand to maintain a distance from the conflict. The other organization, ‘The School for Peace’ at Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom, is an educational institute that was founded within a shared – Jewish- Palestinian village, with the prospect of promoting just and equal Palestinian-Jewish relations in Israel and advancing peace. A central work-method employed by the school is the facilitation of dialogue encoutners between Jewish and Palestinian participants. At the time of my research, these encounters were constituted on the Confrontation Model. Moreover, the School for Peace functioned as an entrepreneur, spreading its worldview and methods by developing and distributing

 Names and other information (e.g. location) that may hint at 'Together’s identity were disguised. This quote is a paraphrase of the original one, in order to keep the organization’s anonymity.

242

Linda Jakob Sadeh

professional and academic knowledge (e.g. Halabi, 2000; Halabi, & Sonnenschein, 2004), and via the operation of a group facilitation course – training hundreds of facilitators of dialogue encounters throughout the years (Friedberg, 2007). In both organizations, Jews and Palestinians work together in the same or parallel positions and hierarchical levels. Furthermore, the principal organizational vision in both cases stress a shared – Jewish and Palestinian – society in Israel and the promotion of peace. Thus, contrary to the state of affairs in most organizations in Israel, where the type contact that is made available is characterized by hierarchical separation between the sides, Jewish dominance in all respects, and in the best cases initial attempts to grapple with elementary conditions for proper contact – these organizations each show relatively advanced structural conditions and cultural norms for equal contact. However, their varied approach to contact, one applying a Joint-Projects approach, and the other a Confrontational approach, allows us to take a glance into their possible ramifications, which I soon turn to examine.

Research Methods I conducted two separate research endeavors upon which I base my interpretations.

Organizational ethnography at ‘Together’ Faithful to the ethnographic approach, during the course of my 15-month-stay at ‘Together’, I strived to get close to the daily aspects of the organizational life and to people’s lived experiences, paying attention to routine actions and established habits (Ybema et al., 2009). Participant observation was therefore my most central methodology, conducted in the departments’ daily routines, as well as in 59 formal meetings (including managerial and team meetings, organizational events). I also conducted 117 semi-structured interviews with 72 interviewees, some of whom serving as central informants with whom I had periodic interviews; and collected written and visual materials. I also wrote a detailed field journal, documenting occurrences, as well as my own feelings and thoughts. Based on these materials, data analysis comprised of several analytic moves. First, I conducted holistic and categorical content analysis (Lieblich et al., 1998) on all the material that was gathered, to identify themes relating to intergroup contact, and particularly following those that echo with the coexistence or joint projects’ models, and themes concerning the intergroup conflict. Second, since my data contained many instances of group interaction, I analyzed these interactions, following turn-taking in the conversation (Sacks et al., 1974; Myers, 2000), and examining each turn in relation to the dramatic frame of the conversation (Sawyer, 2003).

15 Contact at work

243

Throughout these analytic steps I paid attention to expressions of the ‘languages of the unsayable’ (Rogers et al., 1999), analyzing that which was not said during moments of negation, evasion, revision, denial, hesitation, and silence, and examining the context of such moments. My analysis at these stages revealed the presence of many different emotions, leading me to conduct, in the third stage, a systematic analysis of the organizational emotional dynamics. I analysed and compared between experienced emotions (shared with me during interviews, or with others in other settings); emotional displays; and emotional trajectories within interactions (Godbold, 2015), examining their related content and object (person, subject).

Interviews with Facilitators Trained at ‘Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom’ Studying the ramifications of the Confrontation Model at work, the scope of this research was much smaller, though it probed deeply into the fundamental narrations and understandings of participants. I interviewed 12 group facilitators – 6 Palestinians and 6 Jews – all of whom were trained at Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom School for Peace between 2000–2009. Seven of the facilitators continued working at the school, and the rest facilitated encounters via other organizations, with all working in the field for at least a year. The interviews were conducted according to the narrative approach (Lieblich et al., 1998), were semi-structured and had two parts, each part lasted an hour and a half on average: The first part revolved around interviewees’ life-stories, the second around their training experiences at the school, and their work experiences in the organizations in which they worked as dialogue facilitators. The interviews were recorded and transcribed into 470 pages of text. Data analysis for the materials gathered in this setting comprised of content and narrative analysis conducted for each interview, and a comparison between the interviews at a later stage. Content analysis (Lieblich et al., 1998) included holistic analysis – reading each interview as a whole unit and marking general themes; and categoric analysis – extracting categories that stemmed from my planned questions, such as experiences from the facilitators training at Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom and from work itself, and understandings that were formed in the course of training and work. Narrative analysis involved an examination of the overall story that was told during the interview, as well as an analysis of each of the miniature stories that were told. I disseminated each story, detailing the hero, the side characters, the plotline, and the message, or moral, coming up from the story. I also observed the overall form of the stories, noticing that some interpretive patterns that facilitators have learned in the course of their training, such as sensitivity to power relation and oppression – were reproduced in the life and work stories of interviewees. Lastly, I compared between the major themes that emerged in the interviews, looking for

244

Linda Jakob Sadeh

repeated themes as well as patterned variations. During this stage I noticed some systematic differences between Palestinian and Jewish facilitators, while also noticing the contexts in which nationality did not play a significant role in the stories of interviewees. During both research endeavors, and throughout both data collection and analysis stages, I attempted to take my identity as an Israeli Jew into account: to be reflective about how it influenced the people I met during observations and interviews, and what I might miss out as I interpret the research materials. My research of facilitators trained in Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom School for Peace evolved from my own experience as a dialogue facilitator in a different organization, where the partial utilization of the confrontational model had challenged my own assumptions about intergroup contact. I started the research with an inner criticism about the conflicts that this approach had evoked among staff members. The research had confirmed the spread of this experience, while opening my eyes to the considerable influence of the confrontation model on facilitators’ attitudes and understandings. As I started my study at ‘Together’, my sensitivity to power relations and inequality was considerably more developed, partially due to my evolving experience as a dialogue facilitator and the things I have learned from my interviewees from the School for Peace. This had assisted me in the power-ladden and culturally-biased situation of studying the Palestinian population at ‘Together’. In many cases, there was need to counterbalance the strong influence of my Jewish identity by revealing my critical understandings of the conflict to Palestinian interviewees. This yielded almost immediately more open expressions on their part, as well as afforded me access to their exclusive interaction zones. With time, trust was built, allowing me to learn about the experiences and emotions of both the Palestinian and Jewish members. Another predisposition that I was reflexive about was my initial criticism regarding the Coexistence and Joint Projects models, which was practiced in ‘Together’. To work with this predisposition, and be faithful to the ethnographic approach that drives the researcher to get close to informants’ subjective experiences and understandings, I employed a variety of validating mechanisms (Tracy, 2010; Whittemore et al., 2001). Beyond spending a long time in the organization and getting to know people’s lived experience, in my interpretations I made special efforts to notice the internal logics that guided my informants and the organization as a whole. Additionally, I continuously discussed my interpretations with several academic colleagues, taking advantage of their more distant connection to the data (Evans et al., 2016). In a later stage, I also discussed my interpretations with several of the organization’s members – Jews and Palestinians.

15 Contact at work

245

Findings I now turn to the presentation of my findings – first in the case of ‘Together’, applying a Joint-Projects approach, and then in the case of facilitators who were trained in ‘Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom’, based on the Confrontation Model.

Evading the ‘elephant in the room’: Disconnecting Contact from Conflict at ‘Together’ Here you see true coexistence. Because here I work with the (Palestinian) people. You know? These are your work buddies, you laugh with them, you curse your boss with them. So it’s an amazing experience. [Interview, Jewish worker]. You walk into the showers, and you hear these Jewish-Arabs, you know, these Jewish 70, 80 years old who grew up in Iraq, Egypt, singing Umm Kalthoum (famous Arab singer), and you walk in there and – holy shit, you don’t know who’s Arab and who’s Jewish [. . .] It’s amazing! [. . .] You see how their minds have been shifted [. . .] Hold on, we thought that you’re this, this, this and that. And look – you sing Umm Kalthoum. You speak better Arabic than me. You realize the common humanity in the other . . . You see that the other is just a human being. [Interview, Palestinian manager]

‘Together’ is structurally and normatively a unique organization compared to its broader environment. People from both nations work together, or attend its space for varied activities. Its exterior design includes symbols from Christianity, Islam and Judaism; Hebrew, Arabic and English are all legitimate and commonly used languages; and Palestinians and Jews have a similar representation in managerial and professional levels. Under such conditions, cross-national relationships are formed, and seem ‘natural’, or ‘normal’ as many in ‘Together’ declare, often generating excitement for being able to challenge the expected relational patterns of those perceived as enemies. Still, alongside the prominent experience of being similar and close to the ‘other’, the conflict-avoidance approach characterizing the ‘Joint Projects’ model, preventing Jews and Palestinians in ‘Together’ from discussing the national conflict, hinders contact from being transformational in other aspects. First, the sense of closeness and salience of an overarching organizational, professional or human identity are restricted to particular times and states of mind. As conflict remains the white elephant in the encounter, a cognitive and emotional distance is maintained between Palestinians and Jews around the same issues that keep them apart in the external environment, preventing the development of empathy that serve as the promise of intergroup contact. The sense of distance becomes prominent in times of violent events or national Jewish holidays, when organizational members no longer manage to detach from the outer conflictual reality. As Sophian, a Palestinian employee, points out during an Israeli military operation in Gaza:

246

Linda Jakob Sadeh

Everybody keeps their thoughts to themselves. Don't let them out [. . .] at the end of the day, everyone has their own sentiments, belong to their own nation, keep what they think in their hearts to themselves. I cry with you about what happens, and you cry with me, but at some point – there'll be this something you keep to yourself. This is my people, this is your people. We don't speak openly here. No one does. [Interview, Palestinian worker]

Secondly, the absence of encounter dealing directly with the national conflict prevents Jewish and Palestinian members from acquiring a deeper understanding of the ‘other’ and from gaining political awareness. This is especially pertinent to the Jewish members, who commonly know much less about their Palestinian counterparts. The preservation of the knowledge gap in ‘Together’ is strongly exemplified in the Jewish members’ common lack of knowledge about the legal status of their Palestinian friends and colleagues. Many of the Palestinian workers in ‘Together’ come from Jerusalem and have a residential, not citizen, status. Beyond the direct, personal implications of this legal status on their daily lives, identity, and rights, learning about it is a potential gateway for becoming acquainted with additional facts and perspectives (e.g., Israel’s occupation in Jerusalem; non-violent resistance). Yet, because of the widespread organizational policy of ‘keeping politics away from the building’ (Int., Jewish worker; common phrase), many Jewish members in ‘Together’ are neither familiar with their colleagues’ residential status, nor with its implications or roots. Thirdly, in this state of affairs, the socio-political circumstances of asymmetric power relations between Palestinians and Jews percolate contact at work as well, and are perpetuated in various aspects of the organizational life. A conversation with Aya and Iman, Palestinian receptionists in the Sports Department membership office in ‘Together’, illustrates how the normative rule of avoiding conflict-related contents perpetuates power asymmetry, preventing the status quo from changing: Aya: Gila (the department’s manager) always makes sure she mentions every Jewish event. And never remembers to mention any Christian or Muslim holiday. Iman: Yeh. In Easter I had to remind her that we're closing the membership office. She never remembers. Aya: But during Jewish holidays, she always remembers mentioning that now it's Passover, now it's Hanukah. In Hanukah she places Hanukah candles here in the office, and downstairs in the gym and in the gymnastics area. It's OK. But in our holiday, she doesn't even say 'happy holiday' [. . .] Iman: I remember some people told me that Danny (the Hotel’s Jewish manager) looked at the people who didn't stand during the siren on Holocaust Day as if – why aren't you standing? But we don't talk about it. Aya: And people who are from here are supposed to know why we are not standing.

15 Contact at work

247

Iman and Aya express their frustration and anger with regards to Gila, their manager, who they feel lacks awareness of their needs. Mentioning Danny, the hotel and restaurant manager, they show how social identities entwine with organizational hierarchy in other departments as well, and how lack of knowledge or understanding of their positions as Palestinians, sustained in the absence of talk, enables repeated instances of inequality. An even more profound, hidden aspect of inequality is preserved in the emotion work that Jewish and Palestinian members are engaged in. Emotion work (Hochschild, 1979) relates to the self-regulation that organizational members carry out, to be able to attain a socially acceptable emotional face and elicit social approval. In ‘Together’, I find that both Jews and Palestinians engage in emotion work in order to comply with the organizational demand to feel closeness, love, hope and excitement. While we know that such emotion work is widespread during incidents of highly violent and political events in the larger social context (Jakob Sadeh & Zilber, 2019, Darr, 2020), I also find it to be prevalent in the daily organizational reality of work. Moreover, as Jews and Palestinians’ points of departure differ, Palestinian members have to engage in more draining emotion work. For Jewish members in ‘Together’, daily lived experiences are predominantly detached from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Only rarely do personal experiences arise, relating to military duties or personal loses. By contrast, for Palestinian members, conflictderived personal experiences such as restrictions of movement, problems with sanitation, housing, education and crime are a commonplace and intense part of everyday life, constituting their emotional experience. As Nabil, a shift supervisor, points out to me during an interview: The city is filled with racism; the energy here is very bad. Every morning you wake up, become charged with hatred, go to work, and come back home with this hatred after going through the barriers, the traffic.

‘Together’ symbolizes an alternative reality to these harsh experiences. Yet, the transition that Palestinian inhabitants experience – from their encounter with Jews as oppressors or discriminators to a peaceful encounter with Jews, and the demand to leave the intense external experiences out of the organizational gate, necessitate particularly strenuous emotion work as a daily endeavour. Given our knowledge of the consequences of such labour (Grandey, 2003) – Palestinian inhabitants pay a greater toll for such efforts, compared to their Jewish counterparts. All in all, warm feelings of closeness and universal values are sparked between Palestinians and Jews at ‘Together’, albeit at a price. They are ineffective in times of political challenges, which may be considered a test point. Mutual knowledge that could have developed as a result of the intergroup contact is impeded, and power relations, although challenged in some structural aspects in the organization, are reenacted and maintained.

248

Linda Jakob Sadeh

Shattering Myths: Pursuing contact by highlighting conflict at ‘Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom’ As I told you, I worked in Neve Shalom. I opened my eyes to a lot of things [. . .] It’s not just that Neve Shalom gave me the tools. There were also a lot of things opening up to me. [Haifa, Palestinian]; (I went through) a lot, a lot of vicissitudes. I don’t know where to start. It’s a lot, a lot, constantly becoming disillusioned, disillusioned, and again disillusioned, and again. [Efrat, Jewish].

Applying the Confrontation Model to contact at work, as manifested among group facilitators in the School for Peace in ‘Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom’, and told from their own perspectives, is a mirror reflection to what is seen in ‘Together’. The facilitators, who had an opportunity for direct dialogue as part of their initial training and their ‘on the job training’, talk repeatedly about a transformation they had experienced, using words such as ‘disillusionment’, ‘insight’, ‘opened my eyes’. Although their words imply that the road towards gaining new insights is not a pleasant one, it is certainly a profound one – involving their worldviews, emotions and self-perceptions. Though these effects of the Confrontation intergroup contact were depicted by both Palestinian and Jewish facilitators, some differences were noted: for Jewish facilitators, the transformation which they experienced was reflected in their recognition of the asymmetric power relations between Jews and Palestinians at the societal level, which perpetuated in other settings. In all cases but one, this recognition was accompanied by feelings of guilt, and a desire for change. As Efrat shares: You realize that you are in a privileged position. This was perhaps one of my strongest realizations [. . .] Exposing the racist perceptions that are embedded in everything, in every Jewish Zionist person who grew up here. And in me. All the time I felt like they’re raising more and more and more consciousness, confronting me with the most difficult spots, the darkest places.

For Palestinian facilitators, the transformation was reflected in an experience of liberation from discrimination and oppression. An ability to voice their thoughts, feelings and aspects of their national identity that usually necessitate concealment among Jewish counterparts. As Alham, a Palestinian facilitator shares: All of a sudden you feel that you’re no longer marginal, that you have some sort of power. A right to speak, a right to be heard [. . .] You realize how great the effect is when you speak freely about things [. . .] There was even someone who said out loud: I bet there’s someone from the ISA2 among us. Like, he was serious about that. It was huge to get that fear out loudly, this anxiety that is always there for all Arabs, that the ISA is after you, and if god forbids you mention Palestine in some context. And then, saying it out loud, it was something special. It was huge.

 The ISA – Israeli Security Agency – is an intelligence organization working inside Israel and the Palestinian territories in an aim to prevent violent resistance and dismantle related organizing.

15 Contact at work

249

Beyond the direct reports by facilitators regarding the transformation they have experienced, I identify the transformative effect that the confrontational contact had on facilitators via their life-stories. Based on the constructivist stance, life-stories are not a narration of objective pasts, but instead reflect present understandings of persons, who retrospectively narrate their past using their current active paradigms. From this perspective, it seems that facilitators have internalized the critical approach they have experienced at the school to such an extent, that it had changed their entire outlook, navigating them to notice deeply rooted and taken-for-granted inequalities – both in the Israeli-Palestinian context, and in other diverse life arenas. Haifa’s (a Palestinian interviewee) story demonstrated this interpretation: From the beginning I was very very different from my society. As a child I was curious to learn things that girls should not know [. . .] When they told me to sit down quietly, I went and investigated why, I checked. And when they didn’t give me answers, I did things that were forbidden [. . .] In Nagm il-leil (an Arab village), in my grandpa and grandma’s yard – this was where I grew up – they had this big gate and an iron rod that would close it. I hanged on this rod from my feet all the time, my legs were in this ninety degrees angle, and I hanged upside down. This is how I am remembered there.

Haifa’s opening sentence accentuate her difference compared to others in her society, as well as her nonconformist and critical nature. Her later image, hanging upside down in her grandparents’ yard, once again serves to demonstrate her defiance of the social norms as part of her identity. This stance costs her dearly at school: There were teachers that didn’t want me in their class. Although I was very smart and had very high grades. But the questions that I asked, especially when we studied Civics and History. There’s a different history, our history that we don’t study. [. . .] When they taught us about democracy, I don’t feel that democracy exists in my own personal story. So I asked the teacher – what do you mean when you talk about democracy? Are you referring to Israel? [. . .] I brought other examples to the ones he had. And he just erased them. He didn’t want to deal with it. Many times he threw me out [. . .] One time he came into class and told me – get out. Even before I opened my mouth. This was a very strong experience.

Haifa’s experience of challenging her Civics and History teacher, following acts of oppression from his side, was depicted over and over again by my Palestinian interviewees. These stories are comprised of two messages: one concerning personal oppression in the school context, the other concerns the oppression of the Palestinian nation. The Palestinian teacher who denies critical statements regarding the Israeli state is understood as a product of the intimidation and oppression caused by the Israeli establishment, gradually internalized and becoming a part of his self-restraint. Akin to Haifa, 11out of 12 interviewees repeatedly constructed their past and present life stories as stories of personal and national oppression. In these stories the plot accentuates social-power dynamics: an oppressive side and an oppressor side, and a self-narration that is either submissive and blind to this situation, and at some point gains a metamorphic insight and rebels against it; or one that portrays the interviewee-

250

Linda Jakob Sadeh

hero as an ‘other’ who struggles to gain justice or truth, as in Haifa’s example. The critical-political discourse is so fundamentally internalized, that it is duplicated in relation to events that could have been thought of as personal, but in my interviewees’ eyes were seen as political. Social criticism is thus constitutive, steering the stories told by interviewees. For Palestinian interviewees, these critical stories concerned their gender and national identities. For Jewish interviewees, a wider range of identities and stories were shaped by the critical-political prism, including the understanding of their ethnic – Ashkenazi or Mizrahi identity, their religious identity, and other more temporary identities such as their membership in youth movements, being a bride or groom, and a parent. Having been intensively exposed to these understandings throughout the period of the interviews, I found myself deeply affected by them, incorporating the political discourse, reconstructing it according to my own understanding of my lifestory, and in my conceptualizations of the Jewish-Palestinian encounter. While valuable, contact between facilitators based on the Confrontation Model also had a dark side. I arrived at this two-day-training session (at Neve Shalom), and then it was like a slap on the face. Because I believe this is a bi-lingual, bi-national place. And I’m no one’s punching bag, and neither do I want anyone to be my punching bag. And this was how I felt from the first day [. . .] They raided at the Jews. Anyone who opened his mouth – they just blew his face up [. . .] All that time (in the training session), my stomach was turning [. . .] I felt completely paralyzed. I couldn’t open my mouth [. . .] (At one point) I said: I guess this isn’t my place. If someone wants to make wars, no problem. You can go blow up a bus in Tel-Aviv. This is what I told them (slightly laughs). I don’t know where I came up with that. Or you can take a gun and go to Gaza, fighting the Jewish enemy. ‘The Zionist enemy’ I said. And I got up and slammed the door. They said that I’m a traitor that first day. [Haifa, Palestinian, emphasis on the origin]

Haifa depicts a training session designated for both Jewish and Palestinian facilitators, where she experiences a verbally violent interaction. Omar, another Palestinian facilitator, uses remarkably similar language while describing a team meeting: We sat at this meeting. The topic was: ‘How do you sum up the year, professionally wise’. Suddenly someone asks the Jewish guys: I want you to tell me now if you’re for the right of return3 [. . .] Tell me. I need to decide whether I want to sit with you in the same room or not [. . .] I’ll feel good if you go on a flight to Canada with me, with all of your belongings, with a key to your home. And we go to a (Palestinian) refugee, and you give him your key and tell him: here is the key to my house. And then we go back. Perhaps we come back the three of us to Palestine. Now, [. . .] you attack this Jewish identity. But there is a human being there! Who trembles, who’s having a hard time, who’s crying, who’s fed up, who gets annoyed.

Omar and Haifa’s words, and those of other facilitators, include multiple terms taken from a war context: burns, punches, rape, traitor, attack, lynch, burst, fight, explode, defend, soldier, struggle. Throughout the interviews, as we were focused on training  Referring to the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their land.

15 Contact at work

251

and the facilitators’ work experiences, these images reiterated, suggesting the revival of conflict in the working relationships of Jewish and Palestinian dialogue facilitators. Such a revival of conflict was also directly depicted by facilitators: In these organizations dialogue and conflict go hand in hand [giggling] [. . .] I see that many times dialogue generates conflict”. [Alham, Palestinian]; We have a meeting. We have a dialogue, and immediately – conflict. At first you try to do something nice, but eventually, the major experience is conflict. [Alon, Jewish]

Thus, in the interviewees’ vast experience, conflict is revived and reconstructed in the working relationships between Jewish and Palestinian facilitators, echoing a message that the group identity is a durable aspect, forever separating the parties. A complex set of consequences is thus seen in this case of contact applying the Confrontation Model in a work environment. On the one hand, the effect of contact on facilitators’ perceptions, world views and emotions is dramatic, as it appears both directly through their self-reports, and indirectly, through their life-stories. At the same time, such contact seems to duplicate the characteristics and experiences of conflict in the ‘here and now’ of the interaction between facilitators, hindering their working atmosphere.

Conclusions and Implications Diverse workplaces, where members of adversary groups interact over lengthy periods of time and are expected to cooperate for the sake of a common agenda, are potential spaces for peacebuilding. Previous studies tell us that unmanaged contact at work does not fulfill this promise (Darr, 2018; Desivilya Syna, 2020). However, these studies by and large have not considered how the particular type of contact affects its outcomes. Building on my study of two organizational contexts, one which applies a Joint-Projects approach for contact, and another applying a Confrontation approach, I have shown how each approach – which may be regarded as a peace-promoting intervention – has succeeded in challenging certain aspects of the conflictual status quo, while failing to resolve others. Several limitations should be recognized before discussing the implications of these findings. First, I have juxtaposed the two studies, although they are two very separate endeavors, both in scope and methodology. Secondly, both organizations that I studied are invested in ‘peace’. The characteristics of their employees may therefore be different from organizational settings advancing different goals, making generalization about other organizational contexts problematic. Despite these limitations, my findings contribute to the study of contact at work in the context of protracted political conflict in several ways. They challenge the assumption that “positive intergroup contact should result in positive outcomes

252

Linda Jakob Sadeh

(i.e. have positive effects) and negative intergroup contact in negative outcomes (i.e. have negative effects)” (Graf & Paolini, 2017). In the case setting that I have researched, I showed that negative emotions that arise in the context of intergroup encounters at work, as part of the utilization of the Confrontation Model, may result in changes in worldviews, aspirations, and members’ narratives, reflected both in how members viewed the political conflict, and in how they narrated their own life-story. My findings also challenge the traditional contact paradigms that “assumed that encounters could be conducted in isolation, removed from external tension and, as such, could have healing effects which would ultimately impact the outside world” (Bekerman, 2002: 410). While the literature on contact in cases of protracted asymmetrical conflict challenged this assumption long ago (Maoz, 2000), this is still the dominant paradigm in work-organizations seeking diversity and promoting intergroup contact, as well as that of scholars investigating these terrains (Abu-Asba, 2020; Darr, 2020). Since work settings are considered part of the economic sphere, interventions that target conflict transformation for the sake of peace are in themselves often perceived irrelevant. Even in cases where social impact is viewed a legitimate mission for organizations, negative contact is the most feared possibility (Abu-Asba, 2020). Showing that the aspiration of intergroup harmony fails to create substantial, long-term, context-free desired outcomes, and that contact based on confrontation can affect perceptions and worldviews profoundly may suggest that the Confrontation Model should be further explored and developed as a conflict management tool within work organizations. However, the complex results of my two case studies are unsettling. While the prices of a harmonic encounter, presumably isolated from the conflictual reality, are disconcerting when it is the target of peacebuilding that is highlighted, the implications of the Confrontation Model are also displeasing. The reproduction of an experience of a violent conflict at the team and organization level, and the maintenance of conflict-related cognitive schemas through these working experiences, make the Confrontation Model problematic for peacebuilding, and practically irrelevant to the vast majority of work organizations. We thus still do not know what conditions are needed to make work organizations in the context of protracted conflict meaningful and adequate places of encounter, where equality is enhanced, attitudes and emotions are transferred, and intact work relations are maintained. Despite this seemingly cul-de-sac, scholars and practitioners should develop and experiment with better contact interventions, ones that no longer deny the relevance of external conflictual reality to contact at work, and offer support structures that highlight the constructive forces within team-based interaction. These implications join lessons drawn from previous studies (Desivilya & Rottman, 2012; Desiviliya Syna 2020), suggesting that contact at work should be accompanied by awareness and sensitivity regarding explicit and implicit power relations; direct engagement with controversial issues; and the involvement of a third party that facilitates and supports the delicate relationships in the context of a protracted conflict (Desivilya & Rottman,

15 Contact at work

253

2012). Arieli and Friedman (2013) have already developed one such intervention, which they name ‘The Negotiating Reality Approach’. Their method banks on certain aspects of the Confrontation Model, as it involves a direct investigation of the intergroup conflict through phases of deconstructing intergroup interaction, and self and other experiences. The method centers on providing participants reflexive and discoursive skills that allow them to continuously engage in thinking critically about reality, inquiring into their colleagues reality, and conversing with long-term colleages at work. At the same time, it refrains from imposing alternative interpretations “based on concepts of power, dominance, inequality, and oppression among conflicting groups” (Arieli & Friedman, 2013: 19), as the confrontation approach often does. Their suggested method, along others that build on the extensive knowledge that had already been developed in the study of asymetric intergroup contact, should be studied in the context of work organizations. In a time when the link between the social and organizational becomes more prominent, and organizations become more mindful of their role as social change agents, knowledge about mechanisms that promote or inhibit transformational intergroup contact may be implemented within organizational settings, which accumulatively may lead to social change. We must therefore go beyond our mere understanding of unmanaged contact at work, to develop and experiment with models that enhance peace-building and political change.

References Abu-Asba, K. (2020). Shared work environments: How do they affect relations between Jews and Arabs?,The Israel Democracy Institute. (In Hebrew). Abu-Nimer, M. (1999). Dialogue, conflict resolution and change: Arab-Jewish encounters in Israel. State University of New York Press. Ailon, G. & Kunda, G. (2009). “The one-company approach”: Transnationalism in an IsraeliPalestinian subsidiary of an MNC. Organization Studies, 30(7),693–712. Albeck, J. H., Adwan, S. & Bar-On, D. (2002). Dialogue groups: TRT's guidelines for working through intractable conflicts by personal storytelling. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8(4), 301–322. Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Doubleday. Arieli, D. & Friedman, V. (2013). A negotiating reality approach to conflict transformation in natural spaces of encounter. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 49(3),308–342. Bar-On, D. & Kassem, F. (2004). Story telling as a way to work through intractable conflicts: The German-Jewish experience and its relevance to the Palestinian–Israeli context. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 289–306. Bekerman, Z. (2014). Teachers 'contact' at the integrated bilingual schools in Israel, Policy Futures in Education, 10 (5), 552–562. Bekerman, Z. (2002). The discourse of nation and culture: Its impact on Palestinian – Jewish encounters in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 409–427.

254

Linda Jakob Sadeh

Biton, I. & Salomon, G. (2006). Peace in the eyes of Israeli and Palestinian youth: Effects of collective narratives and peace education programs. Journal of Peace Research, 43(2),167–180. Darr, A. (2018). Palestinian Arabs and Jews at work: workplace encounters in a war-torn country and the grassroots strategy of ‘split Ascription’. Work, Employment and Society, 32(5),831–849. Darr, A. (2020). Shared Work Spaces: Jewish and Arab Workers in Israel. The Israel Democracy Institute. (In Hebrew). Desivilya, H.S. (1998). Jewish-Arab coexistence in Israel: The role of joint professional teams. Journal of Peace Research, 35 (4), 429–452. Desivilya Syna, H. & Rottman, A. (2012). Role of power asymmetry sensitivity in Jewish–Arab partnerships. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30(2), 219–241. Desivilya-Syna, H. & Raz, M. (2015). Managing diversity and social divisions in nurses' work teams. EuroMed Journal of Business, 10 (2), 264–278. Desivilya Syna, H. (2016). Social divisions, intergroup conflict and diversity – reflections about social conflict and diversity: the case of Israeli organizations. In Braedel-Kühner, Cordula and Müller, Andreas P. (eds.): Re‐thinking Diversity. Management – culture – interpretation. (55–82). Wiesbaden: Springer. Desivilya, H., Yassour Borochowitz, D., Bouknik, S., Kalovski, G., Lavi, I. & Ore, L. (2017). Engaging diversity in academia: Manifold voices of faculty. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion – An international Journal, 36(1),90–104. Desivilya Syna, H. (2020). Diversity management in places and times of tensions: Engaging intergroup relations in a conflict-ridden society. Palgrave macmillan. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K. & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal strategy: A ‘reality check’ for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 697–711. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K. & Tredoux, C. (2007). Contact and attitudes towards the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18, 867–872. Drori, I. (2000). The seam line: Arab workers and Jewish managers in the Israeli textile industry. Stanford University Press. Evans, J., Huising, R. & Silbey, S.S. (2016). Accounting for accounts: Crafting ethnographic validity through team ethnography, in K.D. Elsbach & R.M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative organizational research: Innovative pathways and methods)143–155(Routledge). Fanon, F (2008). Black Skin, White MasksGrove Press. (Original work published 1952). Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Rev. ed) Continuum. (Original work published 1970). Friedberg, D. (2007). Between the personal and political: Theory of practices in facilitating dialogue encounters between Jews and Palestinians in Israel. Unpublished Master dissertation, The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Jerusalem (in Hebrew). Godbold, N. (2015). Researching emotion in interactions: Seeing and analyzing live processes. Emotion Review, 7, 163–168. Graf, S. & Paolini, S. (2017). Investigating positive and negative intergroup contact: Rectifying a long-standing positivity bias in the literature. In Vezzali, S., & Stathi, S. (Eds), Intergroup contact theory: recent developments and future directions. Current issues in social psychology (pp.92–113). Roughledge. Grandey, A. (2003). When the “show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 86–96. Halabi, R. (2000). Identities in dialogue – Arab-Jewish encounters in Wahat al-Salam/NevehShalom. Hakibbutz Hameuchad (in Hebrew).

15 Contact at work

255

Halabi, R. & Sonnenschein, N. (2004). The Jewish-Palestinian encounter in a time of crisis. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2). 375–387. Halperin, E. & Bar-Tal, D. (2011). Socio-psychological barriers to peace making: An empirical examination within the Israeli Jewish Society. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 637–651. Helms, J. E. (1995). An update on Helm’s white and people of color racial identity models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Cases, L. A. Suzuki & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counselling (pp. 181–198). Sage. Hochschild, A.R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3),551–575. Jakob Sadeh, L. & Zilber, T. (2019). Bringing ‘Together’: Emotion and power in organizational responses to institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5),1413–1443. Jamal, A. (2020) The politics of inclusion and exclusion in Israeli-Palestinian relation. The Walter Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence Through Education (In Hebrew). Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R. & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis and interpretation. Sage. Maoz, I. (2000). Power relations in intergroup encounters: A case study of Jewish-Arab encounters in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(2), 259–277. Maoz, I. (2005). Evaluating the communication between groups in dispute: Equality in contact interventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Negotiation Journal, 21(1), 131–146. Maoz, I. (2011). Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation-aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 48(1),115–125. Maoz, I. (2012). The dangers of prejudice reduction interventions: Empirical evidence from encounters between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6),441–442. Memmi, A. (2013). The colonizer and the colonized. Plankett Lake Press (Original work published in 1957). Myers, G. 2000. Analysis of conversation and talk. In M. W. Bauer, & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with image text and sound: a practical handbook (191–206). Sage. Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U. & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35 (3), 271–280. Phinney, J. S. (1996). Understanding Ethnic Diversity: The Role of Ethnic Identity. The American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2). 143–152. Raz-Rotem, M., Desivilya Syna, H., & Maoz, I. (2020). Working together in the context of protracted asymmetric conflict: Israeli Jews and Palestinians in joint medical work teams. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 26(4),427–436. Rogers, A.G., Casey, M.E., Ekert, J.E., Holland, J., Nakkula, V. & Sheinberg, N. (1999). An interpretive poetics of languages of the unsayable. In R. Josselson & A. Lieblich (Eds.), Making Meaning of Narratives (77–106). Sage. Ron, Y. & Maoz, I. (2013) Peacemaking through dialogue? Effects of intergroup dialogue on perceptions regarding the resolution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 6:1–3, 75–89. Ross, K. (2014). Narratives of belonging (and not): Inter-group contact inIsrael and the formation of ethno-national identity claims. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 42, 38–52. Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. Salomon, G. (2006). Does peace education really make a difference? Journal of Peace Psychology, 12(1),37–48.

256

Linda Jakob Sadeh

Sawyer, K. (2003). Improvised dialogues: Emergence and creativity in conversation. Ablex Publishing. Shoshana, A. (2016). The language of everyday racism and microaggression in the workplace: Palestinian professionals in Israel. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(6),1052–1069. Tracy, S.J. (2010). Qualitative Quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837–851. Whittemore, R., Chase, S.K. & Mandle, C.L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4),522–537. Ybema, S., D. Yanow, H. Wels, and F. Kamsteeg. (2009). Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexities of everyday life. Sage.

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 7.1 Figure 8.1

Figure 8.2 Figure 12.1 Figure 14.1 Figure 14.2 Figure 14.3 Figure 14.4

The Multi-Track Peacebuilding Pyramid 4 The Faultline of the Northern Ireland binary identity conflict 14 The three phases of the Northern Ireland peace process and tasks of the Post-conflict phase (1983 to the present day) 19 Post-armed-conflict and NI Post Agreement phase (1998 to present day) 22 The rise of the middle ground is transforming the binary identity conflict 28 Three inter-related layers of community-based work in contested societies 35 Five elements of community action 36 Route of Orange Parade 66 The Intermediation process 68 The shuttle mediation process 79 Some of the 120 Island Pamphlets edited by Michael Hall 110 The refurbished British military Barracks Building at the Glencree Centre that housed the LIVE residential weekends. The Glencree heart logo was constructed from stones laid by victims in memory of loved ones lost in the Troubles 132 “H” Vision: Building inter–group dialogue and potential forgiveness 136 A stimulus for a reflexive writing exercise 196 General evaluation of the training 231 The contribution of the training to various living circles 231 The contribution of the training to participants’ motivation 232 The skill building effect of the training 233

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-016

List of Tables Table 3.1 Table 5.1

Civil Society Functions in Peacebuilding-Adapted from Paffenholz and Spurk (2006) 42 Ground rules for the shuttle mediation process 80

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-017

List of Contributors Professor Helena Desivilya Syna Head, Department of Sociology and Anthropology Head, Center for the Study of Diversity and Intergroup Conflicts The Max Stern Yezreel College, Israel Email: [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-00023481-6003 Geoffrey Corry Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation Enniskerry Co Wicklow Ireland Email: [email protected] Dr. Gila Amitay Department of Criminology The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Israel Email: [email protected] Dr. Daniella Arieli Department of Sociology and Anthropology School of Nursing The Max Stern Yezreel College, Israel Email: [email protected] Dr. Oriana Abboud Armaly Department of Organizational Development and Consulting The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Israel Email: [email protected] Shona Bell The Corrymeela Community 5 Drumaroan Road Ballycastle BT54 6QU Northern Ireland Email: [email protected] Dr. Seán Brennan Independent Researcher Belfast Email: [email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-018

Mor Dar Insights in Education 9 Hativat Harel str. Lod Israel Email: [email protected] Michael Doherty Mediate NI Clarendon Street Chambers 67 Clarendon Street Derry BT48 7ER Northern Ireland Email: [email protected] Rob Fairmichael INNATE 16 Ravensdene Park Belfast BT6 0DA Northern Ireland Email: [email protected] Prof. Victor J. Friedman Masters Program in Organization Development and Consulting (Retired) Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Israel Email: [email protected] ORCID ID: 0000-0002-6670-1374 Prof. Dr. Reuven Gal Samuel Neaman Institute For National Policy Research Technion, Israel Institute of Technology Haifa, 32000, Israel Email: [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-00027130-586X Michael Hall BSSc MSW CQSW Island Publications 13 Serpentine Road Newtownabbey Co. Antrim BT36 7JQ Northern Ireland Email: [email protected]

262

List of Contributors

Dr. Linda Jakob Sadeh Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem, Israel Email: [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-00017443-8265 Avila Kilmurray Social Change Initiative Lanyon Quay, 2nd Floor 1 Belfast BT1 3LG Northern Ireland Dr. Ran Kuttner Head, Program in Peace and Conflict Management University of Haifa 99 Aba Khoushy Ave Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel 3498838 Email: [email protected] Research Papers: http://ssrn.com/author= 1708222 Jim O’Neill Community Dialogue Duncairn Centre for Culture and Arts Duncairn Avenue Belfast BT14 6BP Northern Ireland Email: [email protected]

Brendan McAllister Northern Ireland Rev Earl Storey Kildare Ireland Email: [email protected] Holly Taylor Ireland Dr. Lubna Tannous-Haddad Department of Behavioral Sciences The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Israel Email: [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-00032643-044X Prof. Orna Tzischinsky Department of Educational Counseling The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Israel Email: [email protected]

Index academic staff 165–167, 173–175 action research 185, 188, 191–192, 194, 200 Apprentice boys 63, 77–78 Arab/Palestinian 145, 147 asymmetric political conflict 147 Belfast Agreement (1998) – see Good Friday Agreement Belfast Trades Council 90, 92 binary identity conflict 13–15, 28 Brexit 28–29 capacity building 107, 118 Church of Ireland 83, 95–98, 102 civil society 1, 4–7 civil society movements 83, 99 collective narratives 13, 17 community 83, 85–86, 88–90, 93–97, 100, 102–103, 219–234 community development 47–48, 50–52, 57, 59 community dialogue 219, 224 community mobilisation 83 Community think tanks 107–108, 110–112, 120 community-level peacebuilding 33 compromise 63, 67, 74, 76 conflict escalation 1–2 Consociation – see power sharing contact theory 237 contested spaces 33–34 Corrymeela 83, 85–86, 100–101 critical social work 165 Critical work 183 Derry/Londonderry 77–82, 90 Derry Model 63, 82 dialogic learning 192 dialogic skills 199 dialogue 185, 187–188, 190, 192, 194–196, 198–199, 219, 221–225, 227–229, 231–234 diversity 165–166, 172–175, 177–180, 182–183, 237, 239, 252 divided society 1, 8, 145, 147 Drumcree orange parades 63, 69–75, 96

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110698374-019

empowerment 107 escalation 146–147 ex-combatant 123, 134, 137 Fair Employment Commission (NI) 83, 91–92 Faultline 13–14, 16, 21 Garvaghy Road 65–67, 69–72, 75–78 Glencree Centre 100, 129–140 Good Friday Agreement (GFA) 19–22, 28–29, 85, 99, 123 grass-roots 1, 6 grassroots dialogue 107 Hard Gospel Project 83, 95–98, 102–103 Home Rule crisis 16 humanising moment 123, 137 hurt 123–124, 137, 139–140 impact of conflict 123, 126 inclusive roundtable 63 inter-community relations 33, 38 Intercultural Encounter 203–204, 206, 208 Intercultural Encounters 212 intergroup contact 237, 239–240, 242, 244–245, 247–248, 251–253 inter-mediation 63, 67 Israeli 238, 244–245, 247–249 Israeli-Palestinian conflict 145, 147, 151–152, 158, 160–161 Jewish 145–147 Jewish-Arab relations 145 Jewish-Palestinian 237–238, 241, 250 joint spaces of encounter 145 labour 83, 89–92, 94–95 leadership 219–225, 233–234 Leadership trainings 219 McBride principles (NI) 92 Narrative Model 203, 205–207, 214 natural spaces of encounter 1

264

Index

N-I 151–161 Northern Ireland 83–85, 88–90, 93–96, 99–101, 151–153, 155, 161

reflexivity 185, 188, 194, 198 Relationships 83–87, 89, 94, 102–103 Research Seminar 203, 207, 210, 215

Palestinian–Jewish 203–204, 207 pamphlet 107, 109–116, 120 paradoxical reality 147 partnership 165–166, 175 Peace history 83, 99–100 peace movements 83 Peace Trail 100 peace process 63, 65, 69, 73–74 peacebuilding functions 33, 41 peer storytelling 123, 130–132 political conflict 145, 148 post-liberal peacebuilding 47 power sharing, consociation 13, 47 problem solving 47 protracted political conflict 147–148 proximity talks 63, 71–74

safe emotional space 123 sectarianism 83–84, 90–92, 95–98, 102–103 segregation 13–14, 21–22, 25 shuttle mediation 63, 67, 79–80 single-identity 33 support measures 123, 126–127

qualitative research 185, 188, 190, 194 real-life actions 145 real-life settings 145, 147–148 recorded discussions 107, 111 reflexive 185, 188, 191, 195–197, 199 reflexive learning 185, 188 reflexive writing 195–196

Track II workshops 47–48, 50, 59 Track III 1, 3–4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 145–148 trade unions 83, 85, 91, 94–95, 100 training 219–234 transformation of relations 145, 148 transformative experience 151, 161 transforming narratives 13 Trauma recovery 123, 135 Troubles in Northern Ireland (1969–1998) 83, 85, 88–91, 93–95, 99–101 trust 83 two-sided leaflet 107, 118 Ulster Plantation 15 Women 123, 125–128 work organizations 237–240, 252–253