Contributions of Dialogue in Building a Culture of Peace

Building a culture of peace is a gradual process, one that requires a sustained effort in finding ways to tackle many complex challenges.

If a culture of peace is to evolve from a situa­tion where hostility, aggression, and violence predominate, the core beliefs of the society must shift toward “values of justice, respect of human rights, sensitivity, acceptance and respect for cultural differences, values and practices conducive to nonviolent conflict res­olution, and above all recognition of the supe­riority and importance of peace as a value and practice” (Bar-Tal, 2009, p.

Promoting Sustained Contact

In many cases, a culture of conflict is main­tained because there is little if any contact between the conflicting groups. Sometimes, the lack of contact is because of restrictions put in place by official or unofficial borders, internationally created buffer zones, or other intentionally placed barriers to separate par­ties. At other times, the lack of contact is because of in-group and out-group differences, prejudice, institutional discrimination, or sim­ply class-based segregation of neighborhoods. Whatever the reason, lack of contact further reinforces and promotes bias and prejudice and, over time, tends to become institutional­ized, which further solidifies the boundaries between the parties in the conflict (Hewstone & Greenland, 2000).

In protracted conflicts, contact does not necessarily happen naturally; it is well under­stood that mere contact alone is insufficient to guarantee that dialogue will take place. But the first step is bringing participants together from the opposing sides, where they can meet and have the possibility to encoun­ter each other as fellow human beings, hope­fully breaking down some of the bias and prejudice that exists between them. Although intergroup contact theory has been extended by, among others, Amir (1969), Cook (1978), Hewstone and Greenland (2000), and Pettigrew (1998, 2008, 2011), the con­tact hypothesis that Gordon Allport (1954) originally described in his book The Nature of Prejudice is still relevant to our examina­tion of dialogue.⁵ He proposes that under the following conditions, intergroup contact can be effective in reducing prejudice: (a) equal status of the contact groups, at least within the contact situation; (b) personal and sus­tained interactions between individuals from the two groups; (c) cooperative interdepen­dence, where members of the contact groups engage in cooperative activities where they depend on one another’s efforts to achieve superordinate goals; and (d) social norms favoring equality.

The contact hypothesis is not an unquali­fied prescription for more contact; rather, it suggests that contact should be encouraged when it can be expected to have positive effects but minimized when it is likely to have negative effects; or, alternatively, that condi­tions should be created so that contact, when it occurs, will have positive effects. This can occur because of several reasons: individuals learn things about the other side that calls into question their existing stereotypes and attitudes; the act of meeting with the “enemy” is a behavioral step that creates dissonance with previous prejudices of individuals and could lead to a revision of those attitudes to bring them more in line with the individual’s behavior; strong affective ties are formed with individuals from the other party, leading to intergroup friendships; and a more differenti­ated view of the other side develops as each party learns that they are not homogeneous (see Pettigrew, 1998, 2008).

If these conditions of the contact hypothesis are met, dialogue can play a role in build­ing a peace culture, provided the contact is continuous. Salomon (2009) suggests that contact changes relational dynamics by plac­ing participants in a position where they can reexamine the way they perceive and relate to one another. However, it is not enough to meet only once or even several times. Cromwell and Vogele (2009) note that for dialogue to lead to cooperation, interaction must occur over and over, partly because by establishing a strong set of past positive interactions, it will be possible for participants to recall these exchanges when times are more difficult (see also Axelrod, 1984). A sustained set of productive interac­tions also help participants recognize each other as potential allies or partners in coopera­tive ventures (discussed in more detail below).

Coming together in dialogue requires a seri­ous commitment on the part of participants. Events are likely to take place that make continued contact very difficult, and it is easy for dialogue to stop in response to negative external developments. Yet when groups meet for an extended period, commitment serves a reinforcing purpose, which drives future interaction. In a way, they can become caught in a positive dynamic, with the forces pushing toward continued contact becoming stronger, and hopefully able to resist the inevitable attempts to stop it. By creating a positive pres­ent with the other, dialogue can help parties to a conflict look toward a shared future.

Reducing Deep-Seated Hostility

Intractable conflicts frequently are char­acterized by ethnic victimization, unad­dressed historical grievances and traumas, economic asymmetries, unequal distribution of resources, and structural inequalities (see, e.g., Azar, 1983, 1990; Azar & Farah, 1981; Bar-Tal, 2003, 2007; Burgess & Burgess, 2003; Coleman, 2003; Coleman, Vallacher, Nowak, & Bui-Wrzosinska, 2007; Crocker, Hampson, & Aall, 2005; Kriesberg, 1998, 2003).

One only needs to consider cases such as the massacres in Rwanda, apartheid in South Africa, the decades of bombings and targeted killings in Northern Ireland, the killing fields of Cambodia, and countless other violent conflicts to wonder how it might be pos­sible to move beyond the enmity that results. Clearly, events of this kind cannot be forgot­ten by those who experienced them, and it’s unlikely that all traces of resentment can be erased from the hearts and minds of those who personally experienced great losses. Nor should the acts themselves be condoned or left free from punishment. But nursing hate and a sense of victimhood keeps the hostil­ity in the present and projects it toward the future instead of allowing it to occupy a more appropriate place in the past. By holding on to the hostility, it becomes impossible to work creatively toward peace.

To build a culture of peace, a way must be found to break loose from the confin­ing emotions of fear, anger, and hatred that shackle those who have experienced violent conflict. The opportunity to engage in mean­ingful dialogue can help reduce this hostility in consequential ways (Albeck, Adwan, & Bar-On, 2002; Burgess & Burgess, 1996; Ellis, 2005; Ramsbotham, 2010; Saunders, 2003). Dialogue offers individuals and groups the possibility to move beyond the past while still acknowledging the events that frame the conflict. The pain from past events cannot be erased, but perhaps it can be dealt with in a healthier manner by meeting individuals from the other community as fellow human beings and co-residents of the land.

In general, the culture of safety that often emerges through dialogue can allow the group to validate the pain and grief of its members, create feelings of empathy for the suffering many have experienced, collectively mourn for the losses all have incurred, and offer support for everyone’s constant struggle to deal with the psychological (and often physical) wounds inflicted by the conflict. Through this shared dealing with the past, participants can move toward collective healing and restoration of neighborly relations. Dialogue opens up a space for forgiveness (Kalayjian & Paloutzian, 2009), although this is an act that requires a significant degree of courage and moral development on the part of the victim, and it is not something that is easy to document (Murithi, 2008). Nevertheless, it can be a major step toward heal­ing and reconciliation (Lederach, 1997), which are significant aspects of a culture of peace.

Nurturing Respect for the Other

In deeply divided societies, limited freedom of movement creates an environment in which a culture of conflict, mistrust, and suspicion, as well as a flourishing of “enemy images,” is reinforced. The hatred, fear, and atrocities committed by parties against each other create a tendency for individuals in violent conflicts to demonize those on the other side, attribut­ing the causes of their suffering and experi­ences of injustice exclusively to the other.

Humans have a deep-rooted psychologi­cal tendency, at both individual and group levels, to dichotomize by creating “enemies” and “allies.” According to enemy system the­ory (Mack, 1990; Montville, 1990; Volkan, 1990), primitive and unconscious impulses often result in former neighbours harming and killing each other simply because they belong to different national/ethnic groups. As events unfold, each side adopts a partisan, skewed, and unilateral declaration of grievances and becomes fiercely preoccupied with asserting its rights, making it blind to the need for attend­ing to and mending interethnic relations. Giving so much attention to one’s own griev­ances and rights simply deepens the estrange­ment of the communities in conflict, and there is little concrete engagement between the two sides of each other in seeking solutions to the issues that divide them.

Intergroup dialogue provides participants the experience of sitting in the same room with the enemy. Members of the group can come to understand each other’s culture and everyday concerns, and learn about their his­tory and personal experiences. By exchang­ing personal stories and engaging in mutual analysis of the conflict and its effects, the other can be legitimized and humanized. Kriesberg (2004) suggests that a regard for the other takes hold in dialogue groups, in which there is eventually acceptance of the other’s way of life, allowing for the possibility of different ways of life existing side by side.

By listening to what the other has to say, and allowing for its authenticity, respect can slowly emerge, with mutual recognition of each other’s humanity and legitimacy. Respect does not necessitate our agreement with the other, nor does it suggest sympathy for their aims, but it simply requires that we hear and acknowledge the other’s perspective with­out overreacting or disparaging it, engaging in “attributional generosity in interpreting the words and intentions of others” (Janoff- Bulman & Werther, 2008, p. 159). Respect enables accommodation and may eventually allow participants to come to see their adver­saries as worthy of the respect they have been affording the other through the listening pro­cess. Such respect, and the corresponding trust that often accompanies it, develops gradually, usually in small increments (Blase & Blase, 1994), as participants slowly and carefully reveal their own hurt and pain and find a posi­tive reception from the other.

Through dialogue, the rival can become a legitimate partner in peace and deserving of humane treatment (Bar-Tal, 2009). Without dialogue, however, it is much more difficult, if not unlikely, for respect and trust to develop. As Francis Fukuyama (1995) argues, “trust cannot be achieved by individual actors acting alone, but must be done as a societal venture” (p. 23).

Developing a

Narrative of Hope and Peace

Memories of episodes that took place dur­ing periods of violent confrontation can easily dominate the minds of the majority of people in the affected society. Those who lost family members; had to leave their homes and means of livelihood; witnessed massacres, bombings, rapes, and other acts of violence; or lived as refugees cannot easily lay aside mental images of these horrors. Even those of the younger generation who did not directly experience such incidents are confronted with them on a daily basis through stories from their par­ents, lessons in school, and constant rendi­tions in the newspapers, radio programs, and television specials. The psychological burden imposed by images of the past weighs heavily on the minds of those in the conflict, creating a pathology that permeates society (Duran, Duran, & Brave Heart, 1998; Whitbeck, Adams, Hoyt, & Chen, 2004). The weight rarely lessens with time, although it may take different forms. In cases where the conflict results in a shifting of physical borders, mean­ing that many people have to resettle, a sense of loss and incompleteness, associated with the tear in the social fabric caused by the sepa­ration, weighs heavily on the minds of societal members.

Against the background of such burdens, it is easy to understand why protracted conflicts are so often characterized by a climate of negativity, ranging from collective emotional orientations of fear, anger, and hatred to low expectations about the possibility for resolving the conflict. A sense of pessimism about the future can easily prevail across society. In such a climate, it is difficult to promote the changes that are necessary to improve relations and establish the infrastructure for peace. As Salomon (2009) suggests, it is critical to culti­vate more positive attitudes toward the other side and more positive attitudes toward peace. Bar-Tal (2009) agrees, writing “it is necessary to develop an emotional orientation of hope that reflects the desire for the positive goal of maintaining peaceful and cooperative rela­tions with the other party” (p. 369).

To the extent that dialogue can be har­nessed appropriately, it can pave the way toward reducing the mental and emotional burdens of the past. Dialogue offers the pos­sibility for developing more positive emo­tional orientations, particularly the hope that is necessary for peaceful coexistence and joint action to build and maintain a healthy society. Dialogue can aid in creating what Staub (1996) calls a “positive vision based on humanistic and inclusive ideals without an inherent destructive potential... [with a] focus on the possibility of, and satisfac­tions inherent in connection to, community and peace” (p. 147). It accomplishes this by allowing individuals from conflicting groups to turn toward each other, gaining an aware­ness of their interconnectedness, common humanity, and shared interests. By allowing participants to engage in exploration of those beliefs that were fueling the conflict, they can be effectively neutralized, no longer play­ing such a dominating role in the discourse. And if spread widely, it is possible that the dialogue that takes place in the workshop settings can become part of the public con­sciousness and play a role in “developing an awareness that there may be alternative paths out of the conflict” (Richmond, 2004, p. 210).

As the game theorist Robert Axelrod (1984) insightfully points out, “Mutual cooperation can be made stable if the future is sufficiently important relative to the present” ( p. 126). Dialogue can help participants develop a new narrative that will carry them from the present into the future, rather than trapping them in the past. Indeed, the opportunity to visualize a different (and more positive) future is a key in transforming conflict. By critically examining collective memories, in which all participants can revise their account of the past, creating a synchronized view of what led to the conflict and how it unfolded, a new narrative can emerge (Bar-Tal, 2009). In this narrative, it is important that all sides come to view peace as both a desirable and important goal, one that promotes common interests. A narrative framework that places peace at its center will serve as the basis for both interpreting events and making choices about the future. When this happens, a cul­ture of peace is not only possible but perhaps even likely.

Establishing a Basis for Cooperation

Scholars often point to the critical impor­tance of cooperation in building a culture of peace. Cromwell and Vogele (2009) suggest that the foundation for a peaceful community is based in part on “the emergence of mutually beneficial cooperation based on strategic reci­procity” (p. 235). Similarly, Bar-Tal's (2009) view of reconciliation emphasizes the “forma­tion of new societal beliefs about the relations between the two rival groups that emphasize the importance of cooperation and friendly relationships” (p. 369). Kelman (1999) pro­poses that cooperative activities “can help sta­bilize and cement a new peaceful relationship and create commitments, habits, and expecta­tions” (p. 201) that are conducive to building peace. Osgood (1966) suggests that one of the best ways to gradually lower tensions during conflict situations is for the opposing groups to undertake a series of small but meaning­ful initiatives. Confidence-building measures are often used to promote a move away from competitive actions and a turn toward work­ing together peacefully.

Unfortunately, one of earliest casualties of protracted conflict is cooperation between the parties. As trust breaks down and rela­tions deteriorate, the disputing sides quickly stop working together. On the individual level, without regular task-oriented interac­tion, individuals on opposite sides of a con­flict no longer have a way to experience the give-and-take that comes with working on a project together. The practice that one usu­ally has in compromising while working out the small details of daily problem solving no longer occurs, making it even more dif­ficult to consider compromise on larger issues that divide them. And from a very practical standpoint, the many issues that require close cooperation are left unattended, causing losses for both sides.

Morton Deutsch (1973), in his classic book, The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes, describes constructive processes as similar to a cooperative process of solving a mutual problem, whereas a destruc­tive process is like a competitive struggle to win the conflict. In his view, cooperative relations have characteristics such as effec­tive communication, respect, fair treatment, enhancement of one another’s knowledge and skill, and recognition of the legitimacy of each other’s interests. Such actions, which must be based on mutual trust, do not come easily, but they must be cultivated gradually.

Deutsch (2008) notes that it takes repeated experience of successful and mutually ben­eficial cooperation, in a variety of settings, to build trust between former warring parties. We believe that the key to accomplishing this challenging task is carefully run dialogue sessions. Through experience in intergroup dialogues over a number of years, individuals put themselves in a good position to promote true cooperative partnerships. They gain the necessary contacts with the other community, and they become at least minimally sensitive to the concerns of the other community. In addition, they also become aware of some of the issues that might cause misunderstanding and conflict, while learning some of the skills for dealing with it. In addition, intergroup dialogue initiatives can provide opportunities to learn to talk about divisive issues in ways that avoid unintentional provocation, thus making more likely the success of cooperative initiatives. Although cooperation in the busi­ness sector will probably be driven primarily by perceived potential for profit, many of the cooperative ventures across community lines will require determined initiative by individu­als who understand their importance, who are aware of the potential difficulties, and who are committed to their success.

Sustained dialogue can not only help build the communication links that are necessary for cooperation on even the simplest of tasks, but it is through the dialogue sessions that suitable tasks can be identified for restart­ing cooperation after a period of conflict. As Deutsch (2008) notes, it is important, espe­cially in the early stages of rebuilding trust, that cooperative endeavors are successful. The careful selection of opportunities for working together can occur in dialogue groups with a much better chance for success than if they are selected by outsiders.

One of the positive outcomes of coop­eration is that it leads to potentially expanded cooperative behavior. Staub (1996) suggests that when groups work together in a coop­erative manner, they tend to generate posi­tive reciprocity, and in addition, they effect changes in themselves that might lead to even more cooperative behavior. Staub provides as an example the Cuban missile crisis, where the United States and the USSR engaged in cooperative behavior to de-escalate a poten­tial catastrophe, and following this event took a number of positive, reciprocal actions (e.g., limiting nuclear testing). Experimental evidence for such reciprocity is found in a recent study by Fowler and Christakis (2010) on contributions to the public good. They found that individuals are influenced by fellow group members’ behavior in their own future interactions with others who were not part of the initial contribution setting. Furthermore, they found that this influence persists and even spreads up to three degrees of separation (from person to person to person to person). Their results provide experimental evidence that cooperative behavior can easily cascade in human social networks.

An Integrative Model

Dialogue is not a miraculous cure for the pathology of a violence-based approach to conflict; however, it is a vital component of the culture-building process that is required for societies to develop productive ways to deal with differences and disagreements. And dialogue does not directly, in and of itself, produce a culture of peace; rather, it provides a primary method for promoting sustained contact, reducing deep-seated hostility, pro­moting respect for the other, developing a narrative of hope, and establishing a basis for cooperation. In turn, these elements have a supportive influence on one another, such that each one creates the appropriate conditions for the steps that follow. Sustained contact helps create a space in which hostility can be reduced; this in turn can incrementally lead to greater humanization and respect of the other. Steps such as cross-community collab­orative projects are more likely to take place (and succeed) if a narrative of hope and peace has begun to replace the fear and negativity that previously characterized the mentality of participants. Taken together, these elements, and their supportive interactions, provide the building blocks of a culture of peace. In this way, dialogue can serve as a catalyst for estab­lishing the values and practices conducive to meaningful and sustainable peace. Figure 28.1 depicts this flow of influence from dialogue to a culture of peace, showing how dialogue is channeled through a mutually supportive set of conditions that act as a conduit through which a culture of peace can develop. Of course, there are many forces that can stymie the transformation from a culture of violence to a culture of peace, and the next section examines some of the potential difficulties that stand in the way of realizing the potential of dialogue.