Creating connections in a structure of asymmetry : the potentials and limitations of storytelling as a tool for conflict resolution in asymmetrical conflict

(1)

Creating connections

in a structure of asymmetry

The potentials and limitations of storytelling as a tool for conflict

resolution in asymmetrical conflict

Thesis MSc Conflict Resolution and Governance

University of Amsterdam, 28 June 2019

Student: Sonja Pleumeekers Student number: 12212474 First reader: Dr. Michelle Parlevliet Second reader: Dr. David Laws

(2)

1

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Michelle Parlevliet for her always extensive and constructive feedback. You helped me articulate my arguments in a better way. Your enthusiasm regarding the topic of my research and the words of support were very much valued.

I would also like to thank the people without whom this research would have been impossible. First of all, the facilitators of the Storytelling Centre, Arjen Barel, Fouad Lakbir and Stu Packer. Thank you for opening up your training to my research and including me as a participant in your work. Thank you Arjen, for the kind invitation to come along to Israel. Thank you Fouad and Stu, for making me experience what storytelling is. As you both emphasized: this is something that has to be experienced, in order to be truly understood. Also, I would like to express my gratitude to all of the (former) participants that have been a part of my research. To my fellow participants in the training in Givat Haviva: I learned so much from being around you and hearing your stories. Thank you for sharing. To Aya, Husnia and Yahiya: it was amazing to meet you. Thank you for your generosity, showing me the places you live in, for the good food and the interesting conversations.

Lastly, I want to say thanks to the people that helped me in the last parts of my thesis-writing. Fee, thank you for the valuable suggestions from your perspective. Kai, Mirjam and Caspar, thank you for having interest in my thesis before it was even finished, helping me with the last edits.

(3)

2

1. Introduction

When reading newspapers and other media, it appears our current world is divided more than ever. The Washington Post, for example, notes “mounting polarization” in European countries (Noack 2018, 14), while the New York Times asks its readers: “Why has the United States become so politically polarized?” (Bromwich 2017, 1) This perceived polarization often evolves around different identity-groups, dividing the ‘self’ from the ‘other’. Narratives are a powerful tool to create and maintain these ideas on identities (Breheny & Stephens 2015, 275). They help in making sense of people’s lives and explaining them as related to the collective (Bar-Tal & Salomon 2006, 1). Especially in asymmetrical conflicts that arise between dissimilar parties with unequal access to power and/or resources, narratives on identity and relationships between the parties become a crucial component to the continuation of the conflict (Ramsbotham et al. 2011, 17).

Asymmetrical conflicts involving identity-issues are becoming the norm (Ramsbotham et al. 2011, 17). How to bring people together and create understanding therefore become essential questions of our time. Storytelling is one of the tools that are being used to connect people. The underlying rationale for such projects is that making people from different communities share stories of personal experiences might evoke more awareness and mutual recognition (Kornelsen 2013, 245). Therefore, storytelling is often seen as a useful tool in conflict resolution (Manojlovic 2010, 2). In order to find out in what way storytelling can potentially contribute to a conflict resolution process, especially in a context of asymmetry, it is necessary to further research the potentials and limitations of storytelling projects and create a greater understanding of their functioning. This research is thus focused around the general question: How does storytelling function as a tool in conflict resolution in a context of asymmetry? This research will thereby focus on the practice of one particular organization: the Storytelling Centre. This Dutch organization uses storytelling in conflict situations as a means to bring people together and create a greater sense of understanding towards each other. This research will use one of their trainings as a case study lens through which to examine the phenomenon of storytelling as a tool in conflict resolution. The case that this research is based on is a two-week storytelling training given to Jewish and Palestinian Israelis in Givat Haviva, Israel. The context the training took place in is therefore that of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This conflict situation is solely the context of the case, not the focus of this research, and will therefore only shortly be reflected upon in the methodological chapter. Nevertheless, the asymmetric character of the context of this training makes it a useful case study to gain understanding on the functioning of storytelling specifically in asymmetrical conflicts.

1.1 Social and academic relevance

The social relevance of this research largely refers to the growing importance of identity-issues that the first part of this introduction described, especially concerning asymmetrical conflicts. In societies where

(6)

5

we get confronted with an ‘other’ more and more, which manifests for example in the growing number of displaced people, the dangers of negative narratives become clear. That is precisely why it is crucial to gain understanding on how to combat these ‘destructive narratives’ (Senehi 2002), and research a potential tool to do so.

Although storytelling as a tool for conflict resolution has been researched before (Bar-On & Kassem 2004; Maiangwa & Byrne 2015; Maoz 2011), literature signals a gap in understanding how storytelling and comparable other planned encounter interventions function in a context of asymmetrical context (ibid.). Furthermore, the existing body of literature on storytelling is focusing primarily on projects that specifically ask people to share their traumatic, conflict-related experiences (ibid.). This study will add to that by looking at the functioning of sharing personal stories, not necessarily directly related to conflict, in storytelling aimed at conflict resolution. More specifically, this research will add emphasis to the context of asymmetrical power relations in order to examine if and how storytelling could potentially be contributing to conflict resolution in these situations.

1.2 Structure

The exploration of theory on storytelling as a tool for conflict resolution in the next chapter will show that previous literature has found a lot of ambiguities around the practice of storytelling. Both narrative aspects and characteristics of coexistence that storytelling projects combine, have been found to have many promising potentials, but sometimes also counterproductive effects. Moreover, when taking into regard a context of asymmetry, questions are being raised as to how planned interventions benefit participants, or if they are rather accepting and therefore sustaining structures of inequality.

Tensions between asymmetry in the external context and equality in the internal context of the project, and between the structural versus the relational (personal), recur throughout all chapters of this research. After the chapter on theory and a methodological explanation, chapter 4 describes the philosophy of the Storytelling Centre, as articulated by its facilitators. As will be found in this chapter, empowerment and mutual recognition are two main aims of storytelling in conflict situations, which are sometimes slightly contradicting each other. Apart from its purpose, the facilitators told about the way in which the training uses a non-confrontational approach to conflict-related issues, and how this relates to the external context.

This contrast between the internal and external is taken into chapter 5, that describes the case study in depth. First, it explores how strong interpersonal relationships were formed through the course of this training, along the lines of the Storytelling Centre’s philosophy. Then again, attention is focused on the non-confrontational approach. Instances in which conflict did come up during the trainings will be used to gain understanding on the implications of this non-confrontational approach. It will be concluded that this approach prevents the participants from learning how to constructively address conflict-related issues.

(7)

6

In chapter 6, the potentials and limitations of storytelling practices are then described, taking together all of the observations and conclusions that have been made up to that point. The chapter will end on a reflection of the next steps that are being taken by participants after the training, as it is a training for trainers. The issue of the asymmetrical external context will again play an important role in this chapter. In the concluding chapter, the findings are then summarized and recommendations for future practices that derive from this research, will be posed. Hopefully, this research will be a valuable addition to the growing body of literature on storytelling as a conflict resolution effort, by posing critical questions to the function of such projects in a structurally unequal social context.

(8)

7

2. Theoretical Framework

This chapter explores the existing body of literature that is relevant to this research. In order to understand the role that storytelling plays in conflict resolution, this chapter first describes the broad field of conflict resolution that storytelling is a part of. This is the field of conflict transformation efforts, that puts an emphasis on reconstructing relationships. The contact hypothesis is an important theory in this field that will be addressed. Before going in to storytelling itself, the concept of stories/narratives is explored, in order to best understand why dealing with the narrative components of conflict can be significant. The last part of this chapter will be dedicated to storytelling in order to further explore its possible function in conflict resolution. Potentials and limitations of storytelling as a conflict resolution practice will be listed and explained. This theoretical chapter will end on presenting three sub-questions for this research.

2.1 Conflict resolution in asymmetrical conflict

The story of how storytelling became a tool for conflict resolution, begins shortly after the end of the Cold War. When this era of international conflict ended, researchers presumed that this would be the beginning of world peace (Ramsbotham et al. 2011, 20). Reality was different. Although there was a new, stable world order, there were still many conflicts going on. Instead of international wars, they were now mainly internal conflicts (ibid.). Researchers had to come up with new analytical frameworks in order to understand the reason behind these conflicts (Rothman & Olson 2001, 290). This resulted in a new understanding of conflicts in which identity was a central component: scholars started referring to ‘identity-based conflict’ (ibid.).

Alongside the new understanding of identity-based conflict, also a new model for conflict resolution was necessary (ibid.). Where conflict resolution previously had been focused on resources and interests, the negotiated settlements that were the result of these conflict resolution efforts proved to be ineffective to end identity-based conflicts (ibid.). Negotiations on resources and interests were unable to address underlying issues of the conflict (ibid.). In the case of identity-based conflicts it might even be counterproductive to first negotiate tangible issues instead of identity issues, by doing so only polarizing the parties further (idem, 291). Therefore, the new model of conflict resolution that emerged did not aim for a clear solution to the conflict but rather for a deeper understanding among the conflicting parties towards each other (idem, 296). This understanding is often based on dialogue, in which each conflicting party expresses their own perspective, needs and values first, and then they determine a collective agenda for future conflict resolution (ibid.). This creates a foundation on which further conflict resolution can take place.

(9)

8

Apart from the distinction of identity-based conflicts, a further distinction that needs to be made for this post-Cold War understanding of conflict resolution, is that conflicts often arise between parties with asymmetrical power relations (Ramsbotham et al. 2011, 17). The body of conflict resolution that gives attention to this aspect, is that of conflict transformation. Before explaining conflict transformation, it is important to note how conflict transformation relates to conflict resolution. Ramsbotham et al. (2011) give the following definitions:

“Conflict resolution is a […] comprehensive term which implies that the deep-rooted sources of conflict

are addressed, and resolved. This implies that behaviour is no longer violent, attitudes are no longer hostile, and the structure of the conflict has been changed. It is difficult to avoid ambiguity since the term is used to refer both to the process (or the intention) to bring about these changes, and to the completion of the process.” (Ramsbotham et al. 2011, 24)

“Conflict transformation is a term which for some analysts is a significant step beyond conflict resolution,

but which in our view is a development of it. It has particular salience in asymmetric conflicts, where the aim is to transform unjust social relationships. It is also used in the understanding of peace processes, where transformation denotes a sequence of necessary transitional steps. It implies a deep transformation in the parties and their relationships and in the situation that created the conflict. […] we see conflict transformation as the deepest level of change in the conflict resolution process.” (Ramsbotham et al. 2011, 24)

This research addresses conflict resolution and conflict transformation as processes, and sees conflict transformation as a type of conflict resolution. As derived from these definitions, both methods deal with the underlying issues of a conflict, while conflict transformation is focusing specifically on changing relationships in asymmetrical conflicts. The term ‘conflict resolution’ is used in this research as an umbrella term. ‘Conflict resolution’ from now on will be used in understanding that transforming relationships is a key component to this process.

Conflict transformation theorists argue that conflictual relationships are part of a larger pattern (Miall 2001, 4). Through transforming relationships and people, these structures can be transformed as well (ibid.). However, in order to truly transform the structures of conflict, conflict transformation theory supposes that interventions should take place in small and large scale, with a variety of actors, and on a short- and long-term basis (ibid.). Lederach (1997) thinks of conflict transformation as a long-term process in which personal, structural, relational and cultural transformations should take place (ibid.). Furthermore he argues:

“Conflict transformation must actively envision, include, respect, and promote the human and cultural resources from within a given setting. This involves a new set of lenses through which we do not primarily ‚see‘ the setting and the people in it as the ‚problem‘ and the outsider as the ‚answer‘. Rather, we understand the long-term goal of transformation as validating and building on people and resources within the setting.” (Lederach 1995, as cited in Miall 2001, 4)

(10)

9

Conflict transformation is thus focusing on people, thereby putting emphasis on a sense of empowerment (ibid.). Apart from this, there should also be an “increase in empathy and a decline in stereotyping” and mutuality should be promoted in order to transform relationships (Kornelsen 2013, 239). In section 2.3 on storytelling, it will become apparent that these two main focuses, empowerment and mutuality, lie at the root of applied storytelling.

2.1.1 Contact hypothesis

Deriving from this idea of conflict transformation that presupposes relationships should be improved in order to reach a context in which conflict resolution can take place, we turn to Allport’s contact theory (1954) as a possible model of doing so. The contact hypothesis states that negative stereotypes and prejudices can be reduced by facilitating intergroup contact (Pettigrew 1998 in Maoz 2011, 117). However, the primary conditions that should be met for intergroup contact to be successful, are often not all met in conflict situations. These conditions are:

“(1) equal status of both groups in the contact situation; (2) ongoing personal interaction between individuals from both groups; (3) cooperation in a situation of mutual dependence, in which members of both groups work together toward a common goal; and (4) institutional support” (Maoz 2011, 117).

Before we saw that conflict transformation is especially useful in asymmetrical conflict in order to transform relationships. Yet the first condition of the contact hypothesis, symmetrical power relations, is often not met in identity-based conflicts, that often involve components of an unequal distribution of resources. Therefore, scholars try to understand how, and if, this theory works in situations of asymmetrical conflict (ibid.).

One way in which the contact hypothesis is operationalized is through programs of planned encounters and coexistence. Hammack (2006) conducted research on the long-term effect of coexistence programs on the identification of adolescent Jewish and Palestinian Israelis. Broadly, he found that coexistence programs can either lead to identity transformation, in which a new, ideologically transcendent understanding of identity is enhanced; identity accentuation, in which ingroup solidarity is enhanced, or; identity conflict, in which participants struggle to incorporate new understandings of their identity (Hammack 2006, 323). In all cases, creating cross-group relationships had an effect on the way in which the participants constructed their life narrative in regard to their identity (idem, 350). Also, he found that “awareness and understanding of the ideological legitimacy of the outgroup” may be increased through participating in a coexistence program (Hammack 2006, 329). However, the events that happened afterwards in the participants’ lives dictated for a large part what direction this effect or transformation took (idem, 360). Bekerman (2007) also emphasizes that intergroup encounters can have counterproductive effects, often having “reproduced and solidified monological discourses on identity and culture, thereby further legitimizing power differentials and structural inequalities” (Bekerman 2007, 25). He writes that sometimes, there was space for re-interpretation of identities, but these

(11)

10

moments were most of the time very short (ibid.). This indicates that processes of interaction and planned encounters are only of limited value when pursuing lasting change. Later on, this research will further explore the tension that can erupt between relationships built up in a training program, and the structural inequalities that participants are confronted with outside of the training context.

So far, we have seen that conflict transformation theory argues that conflict resolution should take place on all different dimensions of the conflict, being personal, structural, relational and cultural. Through focusing on empowerment and mutuality, the transformation of relationships is a core part of conflict transformation. However, an important criticism of this notion is its problematic relation to the structural components of conflict (Fast 2002, 532). As can be derived from Galtung’s conflict triangle (1969), each conflict can be understood as having three basis components: attitudes (A), behavior (B) and contradiction or the conflict issue (C). The attitudes can be both emotional orientations, such as fear or anger, and cognitive processes, such as stereotyping (Mitchell 1981, 18). Behavior is defined as actions against the opposing party, with the intention of making the opponent abandon or modify its goal (idem, 27). The contradiction is the perceived mutually incompatible goal that both parties are conflicting about (idem, 30). These can be tangible issues, such as resources or territory. In a full conflict, all three components of this triangle are present (Ramsbotham et al. 2011, 19). Conflict transformation theory argues that in order to truly transform a conflict, change should take place on all three components (ibid.). Conflict transformation efforts focused on relationships, bringing people together and promote dialogue, are for the most part addressing the attitudes-component of conflict and maybe also some behavior aspects, but not the structural issues. By doing so, these practices might eventually strengthen the oppressive structures that exist in asymmetrical conflict (Fast 2002, 532). This is an important critique of conflict resolution practices that will be revisited in later chapters.

2.2 Stories/narratives

From the understanding of conflict transformation as presented above, one might already start understanding why storytelling could be a useful tool in this field. Before continuing to the theory on storytelling, it is important to first get an understanding of stories and narratives. Therefore, we will now look at the definition and the use of stories, their relation to identity, and possible ways of transforming stories, before continuing to storytelling.

Stories can be defined as “a sequence of events with a beginning, a middle and an end that have internal coherence which unfolds in time and space and features characters that are related to one another” (Verloo 2015, 282). Narratives then, are stories which are ascribing an additional layer of meaning to an event or situation (ibid.). This additional layer of meaning is for example added by structuring accounts of events in a certain way (Breheny & Stephens 2015, 275). This distinction between ‘stories’ and ‘narratives’, in which narratives specifically are subject to meaning-making, can be somewhat

(12)

11

misleading since it can be argued that in all stories there will be some narrative elements. Therefore, this research does not make a clear distinction between the two and uses ‘stories’ and ‘narratives’ interchangeably.

Because of its meaning-making components, stories and narratives can be seen as tools that people use to make sense of complex situations (Kaufman et.al. 2003). Apart from stories being used to make sense of experiences, they can also constitute and express social identities (Breheny & Stephens 2015, 275; Senehi 2002, 48). Social identity then, is about “categorical characteristics” that people use to make sense of the social world (Demmers 2016, 20). Social identity is context-depending, which means that one social identity may become more prominent in a certain context, whereas in a different context other identities may be more important (ibid.). Moreover, social identity is dynamic and changeable, in which some identities can be changed through individual choice, such as faith, whereas others are more permanent (ibid.).

In society, different layers of narratives exist in order to either make sense of situations or constitute identities. Breheny and Stephens make the division between four types of stories/narratives: personal narratives, communal narratives, positional narratives and master narratives. Personal experience narratives are stories about the everyday life, used to make sense of our own lives and determine our individual identity (2015, 278). Communal narratives use a larger understanding of events in order to shape personal stories (ibid.). Third are positional narratives, used to make claims about identity categories, or social identities (idem, 279). Master narratives are then the “broader social and cultural systems of shared beliefs and representations in which narratives are embedded” (idem, 281). In reality, all of these four levels, the personal, interpersonal, positional and ideological, are always included in a story or narrative (idem, 282). This means for example that master narratives are always reflected in personal stories, and that social identities and individual identities correspond, as is underlined by Hammack (2006, 328).

Narratives can therefore never escape structures of social identity, even if a story is not explicitly making identity claims (Breheny & Stephens 2015, 279). In the same way stories always articulate an idea of identity, moral components are also always reflected in stories, even when they are personal (Senehi 2002, 53; Manojlovic 2010, 7). Therefore, narratives become an important means through which power can be exercised over minority groups in asymmetrical conflict. Since access to meaning-making processes is unequally divided among individuals and communities (Senehi 2002, 43), the powerful groups in society can legitimize their stories and de-legitimize those of others (Manojlovic 2010, 3). This is specifically true for asymmetrical identity conflicts. When polarizing narratives get accepted in everyday talk, identities become simplified, which can further escalate the conflict (Manojlovic 2010, 5). This process is described by Senehi as ‘destructive storytelling’, which involves exclusion and a lack of mutual recognition (2002, 45).

(13)

12

The power of stories in making sense of the outside world and creating identities, make them very useful in motivating and legitimizing action (Senehi 2002, 43; Breheny & Stephens 2015, 276). Because of the impact stories can have, they play an important role in creating and maintaining our social reality. Cobb therefore argues that stories are material: they can weaken the line between discourse and action (1993, 250). In other words: “To tell a story is to act upon the world” (ibid.).

2.2.1 Narrative transformation

As is explained above, narratives or stories can be powerful tools in conflicts because they are able to create social identities and moralize and legitimize action. The groups of people in conflict that have access to the creation and diffusion of these narratives can therefore exercise power to the out-groups. In identity-based conflicts, narratives especially play an important role. It is a common assumption that identity-based conflict resolution cannot be fully successful when underlying beliefs and narratives are not addressed. Fortunately, narratives are constructs susceptible to transformation, as theorized by Manojlovic (2010, 7). This section will look at processes through which narrative transformation can take place, specifically in the case of conflict narratives.

Cobb defines conflict narratives as having the following four characteristics: it legitimizes the ‘self’ and de-legitimizes the ‘other’; character roles are simplified; the plot line has a linear causal structure; the plot is simplified and often has no future or no past, and; it provides a moral framework based on binaries, in which moral themes are often resonating with cultural value systems (Cobb 2006, 160-1). Cobb, a conflict mediator herself, further defines some characteristics that help us understand the process of narrative transformation, in which a conflict narrative can be transformed to a more inclusive narrative. Since narrative construction and deconstruction happens through interaction, Cobb emphasizes that it is important that both parties in a conflict contribute to the process of reconstruction of narratives (2006, 166). In elaborating a story to create a “better formed” story, attention should be given to the roles, plots and moral frameworks at work in the narrative (ibid.). The roles of a story should enable positive positions for all parties, plots should emphasize interdependence of the parties and complexity of the situation, and moral frameworks should also be complex instead of polarized, in order to create a better-formed story (ibid.).

As can be derived from the theory of Cobb, and as is also emphasized by Manojlovic, narrative transformation does not try to change identities and narratives, but rather tries to open them up to new possibilities of positions and power relations, through adding layers of complexity (Manojlovic 2010, 15). Doing so makes narrative transformation a productive tool in conflict resolution, because “[c]omplexity and diversity of views and subjective realities implies change while simplicity leads to entrenchment of positions and conflict” (idem, 10). Newly created complexities can then form the foundation on which a new, all-inclusive narrative may emerge (ibid.). In the process of conflict resolution, especially personal stories can be useful because they are inherently subjective, thereby

(14)

13

adding “alternative perspectives that had not been heard before” (ibid.). At the same time, as was emphasized in the section above, master narratives will always be of influence on personal stories. In a context of asymmetrical conflict, this means that potentially the narratives of the group in power have more weight than marginalized narratives. A strategy that might then be used in order to create complexity is focusing on the narratives of marginalized groups, as this potentially shifts power relations (Manojlovic 2010, 11).

From this section, it can be concluded that narrative transformation, as an important step in conflict resolution, happens through interaction and adding layers of complexity. In light of an asymmetrical context, it is important that both parties contribute to the reconstruction of narratives, through interaction. Before that, however, it is crucial that complexity is increased, for example by giving the marginalized story more attention. These processes of narrative transformation will be further explored in the next section on storytelling.

2.3 Storytelling

Now that we understand what stories/narratives are, what they do and how they can be transformed, we turn to the concept of storytelling. Before looking into storytelling as a tool for conflict resolution, this section will first describe storytelling in general terms.

Storytelling is simply the act of telling someone a story about something that happened (Senehi 2002, 43). In storytelling, there is a storyteller and an audience of at least one person to which a story is orally performed (Senehi 2002, 44). This act of storytelling can happen in any context, formal or informal, with a lot or little interaction between the narrator and their audience. Storytelling can be regarded as a performance. This means that storytelling is an embodied experience, constructed in part by the material conditions of the telling such as the time at which the storytelling takes place, the location, and who is able to speak (Breheny & Stephens 2015, 279). Since it is a performance, the audience also plays a very important role in storytelling. For storytelling to be successful in sharing open and honest stories, it is important that the narrator trusts the audience (ibid.). An important role of the audience is the acknowledgment of stories since this ought to validate the experiences and feelings of the narrator (Maiangwa & Byrne 2015, 90). Some authors regard storytelling even as a performance with dialogical components, in which narrator and audience are creating a narrative together (Breheny & Stephens 2015, 278). This is especially true in a situation where the audience is actively engaging with the story, challenging it or proposing different views (ibid.).

Apart from performative and narrative components of storytelling, Senehi emphasizes that storytelling is also language: it consists of a certain vocabulary, grammar, and communication norms (2002, 43). Language is never objective: rather, it is reflecting and often reproducing power structures (Peteet 2005, 153-4). The names used to indicate certain things or events are adding a layer of morality to it, through

(15)

14

which existing ideas on reality might be reproduced or contested (ibid.). In this sense, storytelling can be a tool to define the culture of a particular community, creating a shared understanding of identity and power (Senehi 2002, 43).

As was already mentioned, the immediate, internal context in which the storytelling takes place, like location, time and people involved, has a big influence on the storytelling itself. Beyond this internal context of the storytelling project itself, the larger external context that the people involved with the storytelling are a part of also shapes the stories that are being shared (Breheny & Stephens 2015, 278). Since master narratives are reflected in all personal stories, these communal narratives inevitably shape personal stories (ibid.). At the same time, the external context also has an influence on the internal context of the storytelling project. Especially external power relations can be of great influence on the storytelling. This can be for example through language, as was explored before. Additionally, existing power relations may enter storytelling for example through struggles over who can speak first, and for how long (Maoz et al. 2002, 935; Cobb 1993, 250). It may be clear that it is very difficult, maybe even impossible, to leave the external reality outside storytelling events. In conflict settings, this has different implications that will be further reflected on in the next section.

In navigating participants between this internal and external context, which can often be contradicting, the role of facilitators can be crucial. Facilitators may try to equalize power relations at least internally in the storytelling group (Hammack 2006, 347). In order to create a new power symmetry in the internal context of the storytelling training, facilitators should promote an environment of trust and respect (Bar-On & Kassem 2004, 292). By creating an atmosphere of trust, the acceptance of stories of the ‘other’ is made possible (Bar-On & Kassem 2004, 303). Furthermore, facilitators are able to construct part of the context in which storytelling takes place, by choosing a location, recruiting participants, and so on. They can play a role in deciding who can speak when, and thereby model the forming of relationships between the participants (Maoz et al. 2002, 957). Also, they are in the position to provide an ideology for the training which is based on egalitarianism and a positive perception of diversity (ibid.). They can provide participants with new language that they can use in reflections on the storytelling itself, and also offer them a new discourse with which to address conflict issues (Bar-On & Kassem 2004, 300). Through these means, facilitators can have a crucial influence on the potentials of the program. However, by creating internal equality they create inconsistency between the context of the storytelling and the external context, resulting in two frames of minds that participants navigate between (Bar-On & Kassem 2004, 292). This cautionary note becomes relevant in chapter 5, which explores the way in which the participants in the Storytelling Centre’s training are navigating between these two contexts, coping with the contradictions.

(16)

15 2.3.1 Storytelling as a tool in conflict resolution

Storytelling has been used as a tool in post-conflict situations to promote transitional justice, and is often written about as being crucial for post-conflict reconciliation efforts (Senehi 2002; Breheny & Stephens 2015; Bar-On & Kassem 2004). Instead of a tool in post-conflict reconciliation, storytelling can also be used as a tool during ongoing conflict, for the sake of conflict resolution or conflict transformation. Storytelling could then create the foundation on which conflict resolution can happen, making future peace accords potentially more sustainable (Cobb 2006, 45). This section will summarize important research on the role of storytelling as a tool in conflict resolution, looking at its purposes, and the potentials and limitations that these previous studies have found.

Through researching storytelling projects in Israel, Bar-On and Kassem show that storytelling can be a useful tool to address the deeper lying issues that identity-based conflict resolution and conflict transformation try to address (2004, 293). Bar-On and Kassem conducted research on a project that used storytelling as a means to let Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis work through conflict issues together and work towards reconciliation (2004). In order to do so, they first let them work through “unresolved pain and anger related to the past” (idem, 290). Through this process, internal group differences were exposed at first (idem, 301). Then, a common image and understanding was created, which led to more empathy and openness on both sides (idem, 298). The people participating in the workshop grew more reflective towards their own identity (idem, 300). In some cases, this led to stronger identification with their ingroup, but it also led to more understanding and sympathy towards the outgroup (ibid.). The ambiguous findings this study concludes on, will also run through this research.

Apart from the storytelling itself, another important component of storytelling projects is coexistence. As was seen in theory on the contact hypothesis (Allport 1954), intergroup relations can be improved through contact interventions (Maoz 2011, 116). Since storytelling projects bring people from different groups together, they can be regarded as a model for planned encounters. Maoz (2011) distinguished four different models of planned encounters: the Coexistence Model, the Joint Projects Model, the Confrontational Model, and the Narrative Model. Two of these are applicable to the practice of the Storytelling Centre: the Coexistence Model and the Narrative Model. The Coexistence Model tries to bridge differences between groups in conflict through a positive approach, focusing on the ideas of togetherness and cooperation (Maoz 2011, 118). It emphasizes interpersonal similarities, and commonalities in for example culture and language (ibid.). As a consequence, it does not directly address the conflict and issues or dilemmas that are related to the conflict (ibid.). The Narrative Model uses a narrative approach to bring people of conflicting communities in contact with each other (idem, 120). The participants engage in storytelling events, sharing personal stories of experiences and suffering in the conflict, thereby also sharing collective narratives on the conflict (ibid.). In this model, the conflict situation does play a big role.

(17)

16

A difference between the Coexistence Model and the Narrative Model, is that the former is merely searching for similarities, thereby trying to avoid the topic of conflict, in contrast to the latter. The Coexistence Model is thus using a non-confrontational approach. Recent thinking on conflict sensitivity criticizes this non-confrontational approach by making the distinction between working ‘around’, ‘in’ and ‘on’ conflict (Lange & Quinn 2003). This distinction was made in order to advise humanitarian organizations that operate in conflict societies. When working around conflict, these organizations avoid the issue of conflict (Van Brabant 2010, 1). When working in conflict, they recognize the need to be more sensitive to the conflict issues and dynamics, and adapt their policies to this reality (ibid.). When working on conflict, there is a more explicit focus on conflict resolution, and organizations actively aim to engage with conflict parties (ibid.). According to theory on conflict sensitivity, “[w]orking around and in conflict is not by itself enough for an effort to classify as ‘peacebuilding’” (ibid.). However, in a non-confrontational approach, the topic of conflict is avoided. Such a program is therefore working

around conflict. It can thus be questioned whether projects with a non-confrontational approach can

then still be a valid form of conflict resolution efforts.

2.3.2 Empowerment and mutual recognition

Before continuing to potentials and limitations of storytelling in conflict situations, it is first necessary to look at what storytelling practices actually aim to achieve. In literature on storytelling projects in conflict situations, two main purposes are identified: empowerment and mutual recognition (Senehi 2002, 48).

Empowerment can be discussed on two different levels: empowerment of the individual and empowerment of the community (Cobb 1993, 245). Storytelling is assumed to be empowering individuals by enabling them to express their own experiences and views (Senehi 2002, 45). Storytelling is also assumed to be empowering communities, by enabling them to share stories and share knowledge (Maiangwa & Byrne 2015, 90). Individual effects of empowerment are increases in self-esteem, improved control over decision making, and the perception of increased personal power (Cobb 1993, 246). Effects of empowerment at the community level are described as communities developing their own norms and standards, improving community relations and gaining legitimacy (ibid.). Often, it is assumed that empowerment at the individual level automatically leads to empowerment of the collective (ibid.). However, there is not enough empirical data for this conclusion to be validated (ibid.).

The second aim of storytelling in conflict situations is creating mutual recognition. Mutual recognition is then understood as a willingness to engage in dialogue (Senehi 2002, 49). Instead of just listening to each other, when there is mutual recognition, people are open to struggle in order to find their differences and recognize and respect these differences (ibid.). Mutual recognition thus does not mean that participants get a universalized view in which they come to see everyone as being the same, but it is rather about acknowledging and respecting differences (ibid.).

(18)

17

It may appear as if the two aims of storytelling in conflict situations can be somewhat contradictory to each other. Empowerment of one particular community may build a stronger sense of self and a stronger willingness to resist the other, thereby undermining the goal of mutual recognition and cooperation. The definition of mutual recognition as offered by Senehi (2002) offers a possibility in which communities can both be stronger tied to the in-group, but also cooperative to the out-group. Still, the balance between these two main aims of storytelling is hard to maintain, as becomes apparent in the next sections.

2.3.3 Potentials of storytelling during conflicts

Having defined these two concepts that are often described as the important goals of storytelling in conflict settings, we now turn to the potentials of storytelling in conflict settings that literature has found. This section will outline four potentials: empowerment; mutual recognition; enabling new meaning-making processes, and; meaning-making people reflective towards their own identity and views.

First of all, storytelling isavailable and accessible to everyone (Senehi 2002, 44). Because storytelling happens through interpersonal interaction, it is easier for the audience to respond, question or critique the storyteller (ibid.). Storytelling is intellectually accessible because literacy or any training is not required (ibid.). Since there is no special equipment needed to engage in it, storytelling is also technically accessible (idem, 45). According to Senehi, the accessibility of storytelling makes it possibly empowering (2002, 44).

A second potential of storytelling is that it can foster mutual recognition (Senehi 2002; Maiangwa & Byrne, 2015). According to several authors, the sharing of personal stories enhances mutual recognition because it helps creating a more complex image of the other (Senehi 2002, 48; Maoz 2011, 120; Kornelsen 2013, 244; Manojlovic 2010, 12). As was explored before, conflict narratives are deemed to be simplistic, often based on binaries (Cobb 2006, 160-1). Through complexifying people’s understanding of the conflict and of the other, this will potentially weaken the conflict narrative. It is specifically the power of personal stories that enables this process (Maoz 2011, 120). This is especially true for personal stories about experiences within the conflict (ibid.). Realizing that the ‘other’ copes with similar feelings and struggles is supposed to foster mutual understanding, because suddenly the ‘other’ seems closer to the ‘self’ (Bar-On & Kassem 2004, 298).

By creating a relationship of trust between participants of a storytelling event, supposedly parties automatically feel a desire to recognize and learn about the other (Senehi 2002, 49). As Manojlovic emphasizes, narrative practices such as storytelling may create new relationships, reframe conflict issues and therefore promote a better understanding of the needs and interests of the other party (2010, 10). This will improve social stability and strengthen the foundation for possible conflict resolution to take place (ibid.). Lederach argues when the audience acknowledges the stories of the other, thereby creating

(19)

18

a sense of mutual recognition, this can be a first step in restoring relationships between people and communities (Lederach in Maiangwa & Byrne 2015, 90).

As was explored before, the role of the audience in acknowledging stories is crucial for this process to be successful (Maiangwa & Byrne 2015, 90). Listening to and, eventually, accepting stories is a skill that is trained through storytelling (Bar-On & Kassem 2004, 297). Additional to just listening, a dialogue after the story between the storyteller and the audience can help in restoring relationships, especially since the power relation between narrator and listeners is more in balance in the medium of storytelling (Senehi 2002, 44). This way, the audience can directly challenge or add views to the storyteller’s narrative, allowing for a “collaborative process of meaning-making” (ibid.).

Enabling new meaning-making processes is a third potential of storytelling. Through inviting people to construct their own stories and listen to the stories of others, storytelling can encourage people to be reflective towards their narratives on identity and conflict (Bar-On & Kassem 2004, 300). This reflection and introspection can then reveal subconscious motivations and assumptions, leading people to rethink and reframe their understanding of the conflict and conflict-related identities (Senehi 2002, 53; Kornelsen 2013, 247). When sharing personal stories in a diverse group, individual identities become more highlighted, which eventually enables the group as a whole to create a sense of commonality and community (Kornelsen 2013, 247). Such a newly shared identity, based on parts of the identity which are not conflict-related, can potentially make communities move beyond conflict (Breheny & Stephens 2015, 281). Instead of creating an alternative narrative of identity, storytelling could also create alternative narratives on the conflict and the possibility of peace, hereby contributing to the possibility of peace (Arlikatti & Levin 2011, 243 in Maiangwa & Byrne 2015, 90).

As was emphasized already, in order to enable these new meaning-making processes, it is important that first people are reflective towards their own identity. As was found in previous research, exposure to multiple stories can increase an understanding of complexities of the own identity (Bar-On 2002, 2006 in Maoz 2011; Bar-On & Kassem 2004). Therefore a fourth potential of storytelling is creating this reflexivity, and by doing so, destabilizing and eventually maybe even resisting overarching master narratives (Breheny & Stephens 2015, 281).

The above seems to be true specifically for storytelling events that address stories on experiences related to the conflict. However, the same can potentially be true for a non-confrontational model. Hammack writes that regardless of the stories that are being shared, intergroup contact can create shifts in beliefs about the other and therefore automatically require transformation of the own identity (2006, 347). By avoiding potentially painful disagreements, participants might develop respect and sympathy for the other (Maoz 2011, 118). Storytelling trainings might thus provide a safe space where communities can meet, thereby promoting cross-community contact (Maiangwa & Byrne 2015, 101). Furthermore, a

(20)

non-19

confrontational model potentially attracts people who would normally not participate in planned encounters with the other (ibid.), therefore being potentially more successful than other forms of planned encounters.

2.3.4 Limitations of storytelling during conflicts

Apart from many promising potentials, there are also some limitations that at times seem contradictory to the potentials defined above. This section will outline a set of five limitations on storytelling that literature has identified. The first limitation to storytelling as a tool for conflict resolution is narrative closure, a concept that will be explained below. A second limitations that was found, is the problem of already existing assumptions and beliefs that people bring with them in storytelling projects. Third is the finding that coexistence can have counterproductive effects, causing polarization. Fourth will be a reflection on the problematic implications of using a non-confrontational approach, underlying possible counterproductive effects and the immorality of not addressing asymmetrical power relations. Lastly, the limited longer-term impact of such interventions will be shortly discussed.

A first limitation is described by Cobb as ‘narrative closure’. Narrative closure is the technical structure of a story, including plot, characters and themes and the way in which they are composed together (Cobb 1993, 251). Cobb argues that the composing of a story stabilizes a problem or situation, which obstructs its transformation (ibid.). Not only does articulating stories freeze an understanding of the conflict, another problem is that people with less coherent narratives become marginalized and overruled by another, dominant narrative (ibid.). This again leads to stagnation in a possibility of transformation to both people’s identities and narratives, and relationships between people.

Another reason why storytelling can be a potentially limited tool for transformation, is that people enter storytelling with their set of assumptions and beliefs that are the basis to their stories. It can be difficult, according to Cobb, to “open up stories to alternative meanings and interpretations” (1993, 251). Direct confrontation might lead to accusation and excuses, which creates animosity and even an increased chance in the use of violence, as Cobb reports in regard to mediation contexts (2006, 172). Maiangwa and Byrne also report that storytelling in conflict situations can possibly lead to finger-pointing and blaming the other, instead of constructively building new relationships (2015, 91).

The above were critiques to the narrative part of storytelling in conflict situations. Now, we turn to limitations on coexistence. First of all, Hammack has found that coexistence programs can have counterproductive effects (2006, 346). Instead of creating mutual recognition, some participants of coexistence programs reported signs of identity polarization, in which outgroup members are viewed in universalistic terms and represented in threatening stereotypes (Hammack 2006, 343). The participants who were strongly identifying in a polarizing manner before the program were less likely to experience identity transformation compared to more moderate participants (idem, 351).

(21)

20

The use of a non-confrontational method to storytelling in conflict situations also has its limitations. To participants, it can be regarded as disappointing and irrelevant to talk about non-conflict related issues (Maoz 2011, 118). At worst, not addressing asymmetrical structures can be viewed as immoral, because this non-confrontational method is more likely to accept these unequal power relations (ibid.).

“As [the Coexistence Model] focuses on interpersonal interactions and on personal identities, it does not tend to confront issues such as the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, dilemmas of national identity, and claims concerning discrimination towards the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Consequently, the coexistence model can be seen as supporting the status quo of the existing structural relations between Jews and Palestinian-Arabs in Israel rather than seeking social or political change.” (Maoz 2011, 118)

In other words, by not addressing asymmetrical relationships, projects are supporting the structures in place. Also, research reported that participants may be disappointed after return from the program to their everyday realities. The shock of having to deal with the conflict situation, after having been immersed in the “utopia of the coexistence program” may eventually result in more polarization (Hammack 2006, 359).

Storytelling as a tool in conflict resolution might furthermore be ineffective to have a considerate impact, since macrolevel changes also need to be made (Bar-On & Kassem 2004, 304). A longer time-span is needed to bring about truly long-lasting effects (idem, 301). As was explored in conflict transformation theory, simultaneous change on different levels, by different actors, is needed in order for conflict resolution to be successful. However, it could be argued that storytelling might create a foundation on which further conflict resolution efforts might be more productive (Cobb 2006, 45).

2.4 Summary of key understandings

As was seen in this theoretical chapter, conflict transformation theory understands the transformation of relationships as a core component of conflict resolution. Conflict transformation is regarded especially applicable to asymmetrical conflicts, in which power relations are unequal. Yet, there seems to be a gap in literature regarding how practices of relationship-based conflict resolution, such as projects based on the contact hypothesis, actually function in a context of asymmetrical conflict. This research will therefore look at storytelling as a conflict resolution effort in a context of asymmetry.

Narratives appeared to be important carriers of meaning, both regarding identities and understandings of the conflict. They can be transformed, by first adding complexity and then enhancing a collaborative process of new meaning-making. This is where storytelling comes in as a potentially powerful tool. Still, limitations of storytelling show that these projects can and do have counterproductive effects as well. Often, this was related to the contrast between the internal and external context of a storytelling program. This motivates an understanding that especially in asymmetrical conflict, it is crucial to be critical of the

(22)

21

way in which power relations are handled in order to make new meaning-making processes happen on equal grounds.

This research will incorporate this understanding of storytelling in the results chapters. Each chapter corresponds with one sub-question, the first one being: What is the thinking embedded in applied

storytelling as a method in an initial phase of conflict resolution? Answering this question will lead to

an understanding of the philosophy of the Storytelling Centre, which helps in understanding and analyzing the training which is the case of this research. The ideas and underlying beliefs of the facilitators will be mirrored by literature on storytelling, finding both similarities but also the same contrasts that were already established in this chapter. The case study will then be central to the second results chapter, which addresses the question: How does the method of storytelling function in this

particular training? In this chapter, theory on the tension between the internal and external context will

be used to understand the observations that were made, as well as criticism to a non-confrontational approach. Lastly, in order to make a more evaluative assessment of the case study and address the issue of asymmetry, I ask: What are the potentials and limitations of applied storytelling in a context of

asymmetrical conflict? This chapter will make use of the potentials and limitations as identified in

literature, and build to a more enhanced understanding of these through the findings of the research. Eventually, the three results chapters result in a conclusion that draws on the understanding of conflict resolution as posed in this chapter, in order to answer the overarching research question of how storytelling functions as a tool in conflict resolution.

(23)

22

3. Methodology

Based on the theoretical framework outlined above, this section will outline the methods used in order to answer the central research question ‘How does storytelling function as a tool in conflict resolution in a context of asymmetry?’. This question allowed me to enter the field with an open gaze and be receptive to different (unexpected) aspects of storytelling. I worked inductively throughout my research, creating a dialogue between the theory and my observations (Burawoy 1998, 5). Furthermore, this research conducted qualitative research based on a case study. Through gaining insight into the functioning of storytelling in this case, this research seeks to make more general conclusions on storytelling as a method. This chapter first explains in what way the case study method will be operationalized in this research and why this approach is particularly useful for the aim of this research, and thereafter outline the methods used during this research. The chapter will end on a reflection on methodological limitations and ethics.

3.1 Introducing the case

This research uses a storytelling training by the Storytelling Centre as a case in order to research storytelling as a tool in conflict resolution. Therefore, this research focuses on storytelling as a tool for conflict resolution as practiced by this particular organization. It is thus necessary to first shortly describe the background and purpose of this organization. The Storytelling Centre is a Dutch organization, based in Amsterdam, that has in 2012 evolved from the Amsterdam Storytelling Festival (Storytelling Centre 2016). The Storytelling Centre at first mainly focused on storytelling as a theatre performance (ibid.). Since several years, it is also practicing what they call ‘applied storytelling’, which entails projects that are aimed to strengthen groups in society and connect communities through the use of storytelling (ibid.). This idea of applied storytelling is similar to other storytelling projects aimed at bringing people in conflict situations together, in that sense they both make people share their personal stories in a diverse group (Bar-On & Kassem 2004; Maiangwa & Byrne 2015; Maoz 2011). They are doing projects both in neighborhoods in the Netherlands, as well as in other countries such as Israel and Palestine.

The training that forms the case study for this research was given in Givat Haviva, the campus of a Jewish-Arabic institute for peace education. It is located in Israel, close to the West Bank, and is historically known as a location where different communities are brought together and can engage with one another (Zieve 2018, 14). This, and the fact that the training was given in English, is an effort to make the practicalities of the project as accessible as possible for all groups. On the other hand, it can also be argued that choosing English as a language might attract a certain type of participants, higher-educated and possibly more open towards meeting people from other cultural backgrounds.

The training took place in the broader context of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is an important and distinctive context that needs to be taken into regard both when doing a training and also

(24)

23

when conducting research in this area. In Israel, Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis are living together in a context of asymmetrical power balances. Especially institutional power is controlled for most part by the Jewish population (Rouhana & Fiske 1995, 49). Narratives play a crucial part in sustaining and fueling the conflict (Rouhana & Bar-Tal 1998, 763). The narratives on root causes of the conflict, the meaning of historical events and the roles of the conflicting parties during stages of the conflict are “in total clash” (ibid.). More importantly, the conflict narratives are fundamentally negating the narrative and legitimacy of the outgroup, as Rouhana and Bar-Tal write: “Each national narrative is in a way based on a fundamental negation of the other's”. As was seen in the theoretical chapter, transformation of conflict narratives is possible when enabling processes of new meaning-making. It will thus be interesting to consider to what extent this is process is apparent – or not – in the storytelling training.

This research chooses to address the ethnicity of the participants as either ‘Jewish Israeli’ or ‘Palestinian Israeli’, instead of the often used ‘Arab Israeli’. This is a conscious choice, made to acknowledge the heritage of these participants and the way they also often identified themselves. The term ‘Arab Israeli’ might still appear in this research, since it is used by some respondents and also came up in my fieldnotes, when I didn’t yet make the conscious choice for one of the two terminologies.

The training in Givat Haviva was a training for trainers, meaning that the facilitators did not only teach participants the method of storytelling, but also coaching and facilitating skills. The first week of the training was focused on storytelling and was modelled after a standard storytelling training as given by the Storytelling Centre. The second week was oriented more towards coaching and facilitating skills. Considering the objective of studying storytelling as a conflict resolution tool, the first week of the training proved to be more relevant and will thus be the focus of this research.

3.2 Case study approach

As discussed previously, one training given by the Storytelling Centre serves as a case through which to gain understanding about storytelling in general. Why is a case study approach useful in researching the potentials and limitations of storytelling as a tool in conflict resolution? This section first explains that context-dependency and storytelling being a practice are the two legitimizing factors in choosing a case study approach for researching storytelling in general. The question of why specifically this case is serving this purpose is addressed by approaching it as a paradigmatic case, as will be explained thereafter.

Yin argues that the need to use a case study arises when a research must analyze a phenomenon in its context (1981, 98). Especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, a case study approach can be helpful (ibid.). Since storytelling trainings are highly context-depending, as was seen in the theoretical framework, they can and should thus be researched through a case study analysis. Furthermore, Flyvbjerg explains that the context-dependent knowledge that case

(25)

24

studies produce is essential in the field of social sciences (2006, 221). Especially when researching a practice, such as storytelling, a case study might be the only right way to gain expert knowledge (ibid.). Flyvbjerg writes that when trying to obtain the best results in a practice, context-independent knowledge and rules, is only partly helpful (2006, 222). He writes: “It is only because of experience with cases that one can at all move from being a beginner to being an expert” (ibid.). Since storytelling is a practice, it is thus necessary that this phenomenon is studied through various cases, this research being one of them. Additionally, case studies are a useful way to present complex issues in which many (conflicting) aspects and layers are coming together, such as a storytelling training (Flyvbjerg 2006, 241).

That leaves the question of why this specific case is helpful in gaining knowledge about storytelling as a tool for conflict resolution in general. The facilitators of the Storytelling Centre signified that this training can be taken as an exemplar of the Storytelling Centre’s trainings, making it a useful lens through which to analyze the organization’s trainings in general. Furthermore, this case can be regarded as a paradigmatic case for storytelling trainings in conflict settings in general, meaning it will be able to highlight general characteristics of storytelling (Flyvbjerg 2006, 228). That is to say, the case is paradigmatic to a specific type of storytelling trainings, that make use of personal stories using a non-confrontational approach.

A single-case design, like this research uses, is most often used to test theory, especially by falsifying parts of the theory (Yin 1981, 100). However, as was seen in the theoretical framework, theory on storytelling is often ambiguous itself already, making opposite claims as to what storytelling can do in conflict situations. Therefore, this case study will largely focus on building onto this theory, further highlighting the tensions that were found in literature. As was concluded from literature, storytelling has not been researched much yet as a tool in a context of asymmetrical conflict. This study will thus use the training in Givat Haviva as an exemplar of a specific type of storytelling trainings in a context of asymmetrical context. The case is then selected on the basis of theoretical sampling, which means it is selected because it will be suitable to build further on already existing theory (Eisenhardt & Graebner 2007, 27). Since this makes this research a theory-building research, instead of a theory-testing research, the question of in what way this case can be generalized becomes irrelevant (ibid.).

3.3 Methods

In this qualitative case study approach, two main methods were used: interviews and participant observation. The combination of these two methods enables me to answer the three sub-questions as posed before. It should be noted that the choice for these methods is partly based upon decisions by the Storytelling Centre itself about what is and what is not possible. Implications of this influence of the Storytelling Centre will be reflected upon later.

Creating connections in a structure of asymmetry : the potentials and limitations of storytelling as a tool for conflict resolution in asymmetrical conflict