和解学の創成

  • 1872年東京 日本橋

  • 1933年東京 日本橋

  • 1946年東京 日本橋

  • 2017年東京 日本橋

  • 1872年8月〜10月北京 前門

  • 現在北京 前門

  • 1949年前後北京 前門

  • 1930年代北京 前門

  • 1895年台北 衡陽路

  • 1930年代台北 衡陽路

  • 1960年代台北 衡陽路

  • 現在台北 衡陽路

  • 1904年ソウル 南大門

  • 2006年ソウル 南大門

  • 1950年ソウル 南大門

  • 1940年代初ソウル 南大門

Identity Needs and Reconciliation

Ria Shibata

Research Fellow

National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies

University of Otago, New Zealand

 

My research interest is in analyzing the underlying causes of so-called ‘intractable conflicts’ or ‘protracted conflicts.’ Intractable conflicts can be defined as interstate or intergroup conflicts that prolong because they are often complex, and deeply-rooted in identity-driven needs (Lederach, 1997). Theorists who have studied intractable conflicts claim that identity-related conflicts resist traditional conflict resolution strategies such as negotiations or mediation and are persistent and extremely difficult to reconcile (Burton, 1990; Azar 1983, 1990; Bar-Tal 2007). Since the end of the Cold War, studies on reconciliation has increased over the decades because of the rise in protracted interstate and ethnic conflicts. Even after the implementation of peace agreements, conflict settlements and measures of conflict resolution, reconciliation can become a long and arduous process particularly if there was a history of violent conflict between the parties. Unresolved violent trauma, identity-related needs and the way in which historical memory is passed on across generations can become primary contributing factors to prolonging intergroup conflicts. The key obstacles to reconciliation often involve deep emotional wounds that stem from unaddressed historical injustices. When past misdeeds are not acknowledged and dealt with properly, they can lead to the derailing of the peace process and to the recurrence of violence (Noor et al. 2008). Hence, reconciliation requires the efforts of both parties to remove the emotional barriers which compromise the success of conflict resolution (Nadler & Shnabel 2008, 39).

 

When thinking about reconciliation in Northeast Asia, more than seven decades have passed since the end of World War II and yet the disparate memories of the war and colonial history continue to exacerbate the relations between Japan, China and South Korea. As the ongoing tensions in Northeast Asia can be categorized as ‘intractable conflicts,’ it becomes imperative to analyse the socio-emotional drivers that may be contributing to the unending hostilities between Japan and the victimized nations. At the core of many protracted conflicts are deep-rooted divisions that arise from the unmet needs of each party. Existing scholarship on reconciliation and the dynamics of intractable conflicts could be an invaluable resource for understanding the continued conflicts in Northeast Asia.

 

Conflict resolution versus Reconciliation

 

In order to understand the important components required to promote reconciliation, it may be useful to draw on peace and conflict theories that distinguish between conflict settlement, conflict resolution and reconciliation (Kelman 2008). Herbert Kelman, for example, defines conflict settlement as an agreement that is negotiated with the aim to meet the interests of both parties. On the other hand, conflict resolution explores beyond tangible interests and seeks to analyse the causes of conflict in threatened or unmet needs for identity, security, recognition, autonomy, and justice (Burton, 1990). A peace agreement may receive public endorsement but may not necessarily lead to changes in people’s perception and attitudes toward the former enemy. One outcome of conflict resolution is the transformation of an adversarial relationship into a pragmatic partnership in which the parties can cooperate and co-exist. However, this type of instrumental relationship may be fragile and vulnerable to changes in circumstances, such as the interests of the political leadership (Kelman, 2008).

 

Conflict scholars stress that reconciliation involves a long and arduous process. They define reconciliation as “mutual acceptance by members of hostile or previously hostile groups of each other and the societal structures and psychological processes directly involved in the development and maintenance of acceptance,” adding that, “genuine acceptance means trust in and positive attitudes toward the other, and sensitivity to and consideration of the other party’s needs and interests (Staub & Bar-Tal, 2003, 733).

 

Kelman further argues that in order for reconciliation to advance, changes in identities of the conflicting parties becomes critical. In other words, negative public perception of the ‘Other’ has to be transformed. In this regard, squarely facing the past and acknowledging harms committed to the other during the course of the conflict is an essential component of the process of reconciliation. The re-examination of historical narratives and the re-evaluation of national myths—on both sides of the conflict—are critical components of reconciliation processes (Kelman, 2008). Many scholars believe that it may be unrealistic to establish a single, objective truth. However, it is nonetheless vital to recognize and accept that the different narratives will exist and that they will reflect different historical experiences (Kelman, 2008).

Importance of Acknowledging Responsibility for Past Injustices

Collective acceptance of past wrongs is a critical component in the process of reconciliation and to the restoration of damaged relationships (Lazare, 2004; Tavuchis, 1991). Because prolonged conflicts have their roots in unresolved injustices, an increasing number of governments have been offering apologies to aggrieved citizen groups and states (Barkan, 2000). Perpetrators’ collective acknowledgement of past wrongdoings is a vital element in social healing (Govier 2003). Various scholars stress that the primary purpose of apologizing for wrongdoing is to address the victims’ grievance and trauma, and to validate their self-worth (Brooks, 1999; Minow, 2002). For the perpetrator group to apologize and accept responsibility to redress the past accords the victims with the dignity and respect they need in order to restore functional relationships.  Apology and concrete efforts to redress the past are therefore key components in reconciliation. Without acknowledgement of responsibility, a feeling of humiliation caused by the historical injustice will lead to deeper resentment and exacerbation of the conflict.

 

Identity Needs Driving Disparate Memories

 

Having stressed the importance of apologizing and acknowledging responsibility for past injustices, it is also important to understand how identity-related needs can become barriers to reconciliation. Needs theorists state that the need for recognition, prestige and respect from others is a critical component of an individual’s security (Burton 1990; Nudler, 1980). A positive personal and collective identity constitutes an integral part of an individual’s well-being. Social Identity Theory reinforces this thinking by revealing that individuals derive a sense of positive esteem from their association with an important social group or ingroup (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Social psychologists stress that identity emerges from the processes of social categorization as groups try to highlight their distinctiveness and superiority over other social groups through comparisons (Turner et al., 1987). In other words, people strive to heighten their self-worth by identifying themselves with their dominant social group’s positive image and status. This generates the ingroup versus outgroup, or ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dynamic. Research has shown that when the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dynamic escalates and becomes utilized as a means for political mobilization, it can provoke intense popular emotion that can become the basis for political violence and conflict (Staub 1998). Ethnocentrism and atavistic nationalism can be viewed as extreme expressions of ingroup glorification driven by a group’s need to bolster its prestige by denigrating the qualities of the outgroup (Fisher 1990).

 

Studies have shown that threats to a group’s positive identity can protract conflicts between groups (Roccas & Elster, 2012; Bar-Tal, 2003). When a group’s identity is threatened, collective memory will be valorized to restore the group’s collective esteem. Collective memory can be defined as a group’s shared understanding of the past that may not have been personally experienced but are socially constructed, transferred and remembered by members of the society through formal and non-formal channels (Paez & Liu, 2011). Collective memory of the past becomes an essential piece in the formation of national identity and can escalate conflicts between nations that have experienced histories of violent conflict (Liu & Hilton, 2005; Bar-Tal, 2003)

 

Furthermore, victims’ accusations that one’s ingroup has committed immoral acts of violence against them will threaten that group’s sense of positive identity. Because historical memory constitutes the essential core of a group’s identity, perpetrator groups may choose to ‘forget’ or erase any past that threatens the group’s moral status and places its people in shame (Shibata 2017, 9). Extreme nationalists who identify strongly with their ingroup are prone to defend the pride of the nation by instrumentally rewriting and distorting historical narratives (Hammack, 2008). Such are the dynamics that lead groups in conflict to have inconsistent interpretations of the same history and distinct narratives attached to those histories. Collective amnesia of an immoral past can be seen as the perpetrator group’s tactical decision to defend its group’s pride and esteem (Volpato & Licata, 2010). As such, threatened identity and conflicting memories of past violence between the transgressor and the transgressed can perpetuate a memory war, and become an enormous hindrance to the process of reconciliation

 

 

References

 

 

Azar, E. E. (1983). The theory of protracted social conflict and the challenge of transforming conflict situations. Monograph Series in World Affairs, 20(2), 81-99.

 

Azar, E. E. (1990). The management of protracted social conflict. Hampshire, U.K.: Dartmouth Publishing.

 

Bar-Tal, D. (2003). Collective memory of physical violence: Its contribution to the culture of violence. In E. Cairns & M. D. Roe (Eds.), The role of memory in ethnic conflict (pp. 77-93). Houndmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

 

Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(11), 1430-1453.

 

 

Barkan, E. (2000). The guilt of nations: Restitution and negotiating historical injustices. New York: Norton.

 

Brooks, R. L. (1999). When sorry isn’t enough: The controversy over apologies and reparations for human injustice. New York: New York University Press.

 

Burton, J. W. (1990). Conflict: Human needs theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

 

Fisher, R. J. (1990). The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution. New York: Springer-Verlag.

 

Govier, T. (2003). What is acknowledgement and why is it important. In C. A. L. Praeger, & T. Govier (Eds.), Dilemmas of reconciliation: Cases and concepts. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

 

Hammack, P. L. (2008). Narrative and the cultural psychology of identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 222-247.

 

Kelman, H. C. (2008). Reconciliation from a social-psychological perspective. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp.15-32). New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Lazare, A. (2004). On Apology. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

 

Liu, J. H., & Hilton, D. J. (2005). How the past weighs on the present: Social representations of history and their role in identity politics. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 537-556.

 

Minow, M. (2002). Breaking the cycles of hatred: Memory, law, and repair. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 

Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2008). Instrumental and socioemotional paths to intergroup reconciliation and the needs-based model of socioemotional reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 37-56). New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Noor, M., Brown, R., & Prentice, G. (2008). Precursors and mediators of intergroup reconciliation in Northern Ireland: A new model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 481-495.

 

Nudler, O. (1980). Human needs: A sophisticated holistic approach. In K. Lederer, J. Galtung & D. Antal (Eds.), Basic needs (pp. 131-150). Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain Publishers, Inc.

 

Paez, D., & Liu, J. H. (2011). Collective memory of conflicts. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological perspective (pp. 105-124). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

 

Roccas, S., & Elster, A. (2012). Group identities. In L. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Shibata, R. (2017). Memories of war and Japanese “historical amnesia.” Education and Society, 35(1), 5-25.

 

Staub, E. (1998). Breaking the cycle of genocidal violence: Healing and reconciliation. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Perspectives on loss (pp. 231-241). Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.

 

Staub, E., & Bar-Tal, D. (2003). Genocide, mass killing and intractable conflict: Roots, evolution, prevention and reconciliation. In D. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jarvis (Eds.), Handbook of political psychology (pp. 710-755). New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel &  W.G.Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp.7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

 

Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

 

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

 

Volpato, C., & Licata, L. (2010). Introduction: Collective memories of colonial violence. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4, 4-10.