Approaches to Intergroup Dialogue
Dialogic methods applicable to intergroup conflict can be broadly grouped into three general categories: (1) rational/prob- lem-solving approaches, (2) psychodynamic approaches, and (3) dialogue-based transformative approaches.
The initial development of the rational/problem-solving approach to intergroup dialogue came in the 1960s, when a number of scholar-practitioners and former diplomats sought ways of creating a setting where political leaders, opinion leaders, and ordinary citizens could engage in discussions that focused on learning from each other through respectful inquiry. The earliest example of such dialogue sessions were organized at the height of the Cold War, with a stated purpose of improving relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, hopefully preventing the nuclear Armageddon that many feared at the time. A group of leading Americans and Soviets from the arts, sciences, and politics (nonofficials) were brought together at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, giving rise to a type of meeting that came to be called the “Dartmouth Conference” (see Voorhees, 2002). Over the next 50 years, a wide range of individuals, many of whom were in close contact with top officials, came together in a set of meetings where discussion, unencumbered by the restrictions of official diplomacy, led to mutual understanding, personal relationships, exchange of information, and creative ideas that filtered into policy-making circles both directly through personal contacts and indirectly through the media.In the years after the initial Dartmouth meetings, the term p roblem-solving workshops came into the conflict resolution lexicon. In general, these intergroup dialogue sessions bring together unofficial representatives of groups from conflict zones with a third-party “panel,” which typically includes conflict scholars, usually from different disciplines within academic institutions.
Panelists, who come together with the participants for intensive discussions over a period of several days, seek to help the group analyze the sources of the conflict and develop possible solutions. These approaches are highly structured and could be considered predominantly analytical or rational (Burton, 1969; Sandole, 2001), dealing primarily with the substance of the conflict. The primary purpose of problem-solving workshops is to open unofficial communication channels between the parties in preparation for and/ or as a complement to official negotiations.Providing a low-risk, low-profile forum in which representatives of opposing parties can analyze their conflict and engage in problem solving, intergroup dialogue workshops such as those described above attempted to shift the focus away from presenting and defending entrenched positions, and toward encouraging new ways of thinking about the conflict that induce the participants to approach it as a shared problem. The hope is that dialogue can affect the “climate of opinion” (Voorhees, 2002, p. 351) in which policymakers operate and in which policy is made. In this way, although it is difficult to measure its direct effect, dialogue can have a profound effect on the outcomes of conflict.
The psychodynamic approach to intergroup dialogue is typically less structured, often consisting of more informal efforts to ease tensions and improve relations in international conflicts. Taking a psychodynamic approach, these sessions are primarily oriented toward helping participants learn about each other, developing better communication across the divide, and establishing working relationships conflicts (Doob, 1981; Volkan, 1998; Wedge, 1967). Attempting to humanize the “enemy,” build confidence, and overcome hatred, such workshops are viewed as precursors to negotiations, helping to uncover emotional issues that might otherwise affect the negotiations negatively.
Falling somewhere between the rational and psychodynamic approaches are those that give e qual emphasis to both substance and relationship (Azar, 1990; Fisher, 1997, 2005; Kelman, 1978, 1982, 1985, 1987). They seek to help the parties overcome the psychological barriers for negotiations, particularly with the early stages of a peace process: monolithic views of the enemy, lack of empathy, mutual denial and nonrecognition, and so on.
These approaches typically emphasize equally the educational and the political aspects of the workshop, working to produce changes in the attitudes and perceptions of the participants (and ultimately also their behavior), while simultaneously transferring these changes to the political arena. Emphasis is placed on developing a more differentiated view of the enemy by helping the participants understand that there are different groupings or political forces within each community (e.g., hawks and doves). Significantly, such workshops help each side understand that there is someone on the other side with whom to engage in dialogue. Finally, in later stages of the peace process, after the onset of negotiations, workshops can provide a forum for working out certain details during negotiations or for discussing problems having to do with the implementation of an agreement and longterm issues that have to be addressed once a political settlement has been reached.The transformative approach to peacebuilding (Lederach, 1995b, 1997, 2003) emphasizes a search for the values of peace and justice, truth and mercy. This search leads to the long-term transformation of a “war system” into a “peace system” characterized by political and economic participation, peaceful relationships, and social harmony (Lederach, 1999, 2003). Lederach (1995a) presents a comprehensive framework that integrates peace initiatives at different levels with the aim of creating what he calls an infrastructure for peace. A peace process, he argues, must simultaneously address—and involve—all the different levels of a society that have been affected by conflict: from the grassroots level (the vast majority) to national leaders (ethnic/religious leaders, leaders of nongovernmental organizations [NGOs], aca- demics/intellectuals, among others) and to the top level of military and political leadership (Lederach, 1997, 2001).
An important aspect of transformative approaches is sustainability. Making any kind of headway in situations with a long history of division requires a systematic, prolonged set of dialogues committed to the transformation of conflictual relationships.
Decades, or even centuries, of enmity cannot be overcome overnight, and there are many forces in the society and larger context of the conflict that can quickly undo any progress from dialogue sessions.Although most of the intergroup dialogue approaches are not grounded specifically in the culture of peace concept, it is clear that their purposes are highly compatible and overlapping. With their emphasis on listening, nonpolarized discourse, and the creation of new understandings, these approaches to intergroup dialogue contribute in significant ways toward the goal of building a culture of peace. While recognizing that the establishment of a culture of peace within a particular society or within the overall global system depends on many system-level factors, dialogue can play a critical role in shaping these factors. Through dialogue, impetus for necessary changes at the societal level can be cultivated, new ideas can emerge for reaching effective agreements at the political level, increased levels of understanding can be achieved, and new relationships can be formed that will promote the cooperation that is required for changes to be implemented successfully both before and after a political settlement. The larger question is how this can happen, and the next section examines some of the specific ways that dialogue can help create a culture of peace in protracted conflict situations.