(Re)negotiating memory : narrating a South Sudanese collective memory of violent conflict

(Re)negotiating Memory: Narrating a South Sudanese

Collective Memory of Violent Conflict

Table of Contents Acknowledgements (3) 1. Introduction (4) 2. Literature Review – Memory, Narrative, Conflict and its Transformation (9) § Collective Memory (9) § Linking Memory, Narrative and Conflict (Transformation) (14) § The Study of Memory and Conflict in South Sudan (16) 3. Research Design (20) § The Interviewing Method (20) § Study Sample (21) § Case (Selection) (23) § Interview Guide (24) § Reflections (26) 4. Theoretical Framework (29) § Operationalising Collective Memory (29) § Emplotment and the Balance of Remembrance (30) § The Criteria of Conflict, Coexistence and Hope (33) 5. Stories of the Past, Present and Future (37) 6. Discussion – A South Sudanese Memory of Violent Conflict (53) § Narrating a South Sudanese Collective Memory of Conflict (in the Netherlands) (53) § A South Sudanese Master (and Counter) Narrative (56) § To Conflict or Coexistence – A Hopeful Future (61) 7. Conclusion (67) Bibliography (70)

For those who told me their stories and their memories Without whom none of this would be possible I thank you from the bottom of my heart For the South Sudanese Community in the Netherlands Thank you for allowing me into your lives Your humbleness and your openness have touched me deeply I look forward to seeing and working with you all again For my parents Who have unconditionally believed in me and supported me on this journey Jag älskar er

3. Introduction

South Sudan achieved independence from Sudan on July 9th, 2011, an event that served as the culmination of many decades of civil war that had been waged intermittently within Sudan since the mid-1950’s (Johnson, 2016). However, within two years the youngest state in the world had relapsed into violence, as the President (Salva Kiir) accused the then incumbent Vice President (Riek Machar) of planning a coup against him and his government (Spears and Wight, 2015). Currently, South Sudan teeters on the edge of a peace accord between Kiir’s Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and Machar’s SPLA – In Opposition (SPLA-IO), however the plan to move this into a government of national unity has been postponed and international observers are not optimistic about the sustainability of this current peace accord (Bolstering South Sudan’s Peace Deal, 2019). The history of violent conflict in South Sudan is therefore a long and bloody one, with no certain end in sight.

Within this decades long history of war and strife, the conflicts that have affected South Sudan (both as a region prior to gaining its independence, and as a state since 2011) have not taken on a single group divide, but exist as a multiplicity of overlapping and complex macro level divisions between (amongst others) “North-South, Muslim-Christian, Arab-nonArab, Nuer-Dinka, Islamist-secular, and centre-periphery” (Spears and Wight, 2015, p. 144). Importantly, this suggests the existence of demarcated groups, which is to a certain extent anecdotally accurate, but it must be emphasised that in practicality, one cannot paint with such conveniently broad brush strokes. The situation in South Sudan is infinitely more complex than this, something this is made evidently clear when exploring the further complexities of violent conflict in South Sudan. Indeed, these conflicts do not only exist on the macro level as mentioned above, but also – and often most prolifically – are enacted on the meso (regional) and micro (local) level through practices such as cattle raiding, conflict over access to grazing land, and tit for tat revenge killings that go on between ethnic groups, tribes, clans and warring parties – conflicts that exist not just between these groups, but also within them (NAP Evaluation Report, 2018). Indeed, in South Sudan there are over 40 ethnic groups with over 60 languages spoken between them, and though certain divides are well documented (especially the Nuer-Dinka divide), there are no neatly demarcated lines of separation (NAP Evaluation Report, 2018).

Within such a protracted and complex history of violence, strife and loss, how do South Sudanese people harbour a memory of violent conflict? Moreover, what specific role does such a memory play within the context of conflict? Can memory be studied as a collective phenomenon and what can this tell us about the collective that it thereby represents? In answering these questions, this paper wishes to pursue the research question of:

How do South Sudanese people living in the Netherlands narrate their memory of violent conflict?

The main constituent elements of this research question are thereby: memory, narrative and conflict. They will form the foundation of this paper and have served as the central guiding elements to the research and data gathering process. The objective of the paper will therefore be to gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the way that memory, narrative and conflict interlink and affect each other within the context of South Sudan, how they shape perceptions and perspectives, and what this means for processes of conflict transformation. This will be done by engaging with the South Sudanese community based in the Netherlands through a series of interviews aimed at eliciting narratives of memory in relation to violent conflict. Before turning to the literature on this subject, it is important to outline the structure that this paper will hold, the literature that this paper will be looking to build on and the ultimate argument that this paper will present.

The first chapter of this paper will function as a literature review, whereby the precedent literature and theories linking memory, narrative and conflict (transformation) will be outlined and justified in relation to the research question. This chapter will seek to explore how the study of memory should be informed and understood through the scope of collective memory (Halbwachs, 1992). In doing so, this literature review will outline the central characteristics of collective memory and show how they are most often expressed through the medium of narrative; as well as how – within the context of conflict – collective memory can serve to legitimate incumbent power structures and even contribute to the perpetuation or escalation of a conflict (Zerubavel, 2003; Bilali and Tropp, 2012). Moreover, it will be emphasised that the intrinsic link between memory and narrative justifies the use of narrative analysis as the main analytical tool in analysing the data collected; the link between narrative

analysis and conflict (transformation) being well established (Hajer and Laws, 2008; Verloo, 2018; Cobb, 2003) – ‘conflict transformation’ here referring to an understanding of conflict as intrinsic to social interactions, a dynamic that should not be targeted for explicit resolution, but one in which antagonistic interactions can be transformed (Lederach, 1996). However, this chapter will also emphasise that the study of collective memory in relation to conflict often solely highlights mnemonic divisions between groups, a tendency that can be informed by incorporating theories of narrative analysis, which can aid in additionally identifying opportunities for conflict transformation (Cobb, 2003). This chapter will finish by outlining the literature linking memory, narrative and conflict (transformation) in South Sudan, and argue that there is a significant lack of research in this regard, a gap in the literature that will be the focal point of this paper.

The second chapter will outline a research design for engaging with this aforementioned lack of research on the role of collective memory within the myriad of conflicts in South Sudan. In doing so, it will first outline the thical considerations taken by this author; it will then present and justify the use of semi-structured interviews as the central method of data collection; outline and describe the criteria of selection for the purposive sample (eight South Sudanese people living in the Netherlands); justify and contextualise the case selection in relation to the precedent literature and how the collective nature of memory allows for the study of communities in diaspora; it will then present and explain the interview guide that structured the interviews; while finally finishing by reflecting on the method and how it was conducted in practicality.

The third chapter will then turn to demarcating and operationalising a theoretical framework grounded in theories of collective memory and narrative analysis. This will be divided into three sections: The first, will seek to operationalise the central characteristics of collective memory previously established in the literature review so as to analyse the collected data for signs of the presence of a collective memory, and how each characteristic is represented and exemplified. The second section will provide a framework –mainly based on the theories of Zerubavel (2003) – through which the data (as a narrative of collective memory) can be collectively analysed to determine the presence of both master and counter narratives (Bamberg, 2004) – terms that will be defined in the subsequent chapter – what form they take, and why their interplay constitutes a pivotal role within the context of conflict and the balance between remembering and forgetting – an omnipresent balance that is both

precarious and fragile (Gordon, 2015). The third section of the theoretical framework will operationalise Cobb’s (2003) analytical criteria for analysing conflict narratives, which can determine whether a narrative is predominantly ‘thick’ (reinforcing of coexistence) or ‘thin’ (conflict reinforcing). Within this, as specific focus will be placed upon the role of hope as a foundational sign of opportunity for conflict transformation.

The fourth chapter will present how the interviewees developed their stories and narratives of memory in relation to the structuring questions of the interview guide. A strong emphasis will be placed upon presenting the way in which the interviewees divulged their stories as inductively as possible. In doing so, most of the context of this chapter will consist of quotes that are emblematic of how the interviewees developed their stories and narratives by highlighting trends, patterns and anomalies within their accounts. The fifth chapter will analyse the findings of the preceding chapter in tandem with the previously outlined theoretical framework; whereby in doing so, it will be structured in a way that mirrors the three-sectioned theoretical framework. The first section will argue that there is both theoretical and empirical evidence for analysing the data collected through the scope of collective memory. The second section will build upon this precedent by presenting a chronological master narrative of events; one that is defined firstly by a narrative of progress (defined by unity in opposition to the predominantly Arab-Islamic North), beginning in the mid 1950’s with the Sudanese Civil War and culminating in 2011 with the independence of South Sudan. However, that this master narrative is defined secondly by a narrative of decline (defined by complexity and division within South Sudan) beginning in 2013 with the outbreak of conflict and continuing into the present. It will be argued that this constitutes an imbalance between remembering and forgetting (Gordon, 2015), whereby the master narrative serves to legitimate incumbent power structures (such as the SPLA) and reinforces the sense of complexity that many interviewees associated with the present, by forgetting the inception of the divisions that define the present. However, this section will also outline the presence of counter narratives within the data, what role they can play in (re)negotiating this imbalance between remembering and forgetting. The last section of this chapter will argue that taken together, the narratives that were divulged in the interview process broadly constitute what Cobb (2003) would deem a (thick) narrative of coexistence. Moreover, the salience of hope within the findings was immense, whereby this constitutes a foundational opportunity for conflict transformation.

The concluding chapter will summarise the findings of the paper explicitly in relation to the research question, outline several critical limitations within the analytical criteria that were operationalised, and finally, suggest some areas of future research. Overall, this paper will argue that by integrating theories of collective memory with those of narrative analysis, both mnemonic divisions and opportunities (for conflict transformation) can be identified within narratives of collective memory. In the case of South Sudan, these divisions are compounded through the way in which people remember conflict, whereby through the propagation of a master narrative of unity that defined the period up until 2011, the actual nascence of the conflicts that affect them in the present are forgotten – something that actively legitimates incumbent power structures such as the SPLA. However, by combining the performance of counter narratives (that explicitly emerged in the interviews) with the strong sense of hope and the tendency to speak in narratives of coexistence, there is an opportunity for conflict transformation on a mnemonic level – a (re)negotiation of memory. In constructing this line of argumentation, this paper will specifically aim to build on literature within the field of memory studies and narrative analysis that aims to inform process of conflict transformation and resolution for practitioners. Such literature has in recent years been most strongly propagated by Tint (2010a; 2010b) who emphasises a sentiment that this paper wishes to echo: “although memory is a powerful force, it can be mobilized toward greater understanding and healing between individuals and groups” (Tint, 2010a, p. 396). In doing so, this paper will now begin by turning towards the literature linking memory, narrative and conflict (transformation).

2. Literature Review – Memory, Narrative, Conflict and its Transformation

Collective Memory

Memory is an ostensibly broad and complex phenomenon. Its mention can conjure images of complex webs of impulses coursing through the brain or medicinal analogies referring to different cranial hemispheres or lobes; memory in its objective, biologically observable form. However, memory can also manifest images of the delicious breakfast you ate this morning, the somewhat blurry face of a relative long lost, or the abstract sense of connection and understanding you get when standing in a museum; memory in its apparently individualistic and collective forms. However, this paper will not concern itself with analysing memory from the perspective of biological or cranial functions, nor will it seek to delve into medicinal literature on neurological processes. Indeed, memory in this paper will refer to a more diffuse and seemingly abstract phenomenon, that therefore needs to be outlined and explored so as to be operationalised in practice. As such, no study of memory is complete without first building upon the foundational approach taken by Maurice Halbwachs (1992) in demarcating memory, in its collective form, as being constructed in relation to cadres sociaux, social frameworks. The term social framework, on a basic level, refers to the realm of human interaction where exchanges of languages, customs, facts, thoughts and ideas through communication and interaction, “form the all-encompassing horizon in which our perception and memory is embedded (Erll, 2011, p. 15). Essentially, social frameworks provide the arena through which collective meaning, collective memory, is established through social interaction between human beings. Individual memory intermingles and affects the collective memory of one or multiple social frameworks and vice versa, they act upon each other and are hugely difficult to demarcate and differentiate (Tint, 2010b). What is important to note here is that within the context of humans interacting with one another, memory becomes an inherently collective phenomenon, whereby organic individual memory and shared understandings of history and the past become intertwined and each fuel the creation of what can be deemed, collective memory.

This intertwining of perceived individual and collective memory is a phenomenon that has been recently explored by Garagozov (2016), who emphasises that neatly separating the

two is “an all but unsolvable task” (p. 29). However, in the pursuit of analysing the relation between memory, emotion and narrative within the context of the protracted ethnonational conflict in Azerbaijan. Garagozov (2016) found that narratives of collective memory – which he operationalised by using focus groups, where collective memory was the outcome of “group debates and contestations” (p. 29) – could yield strong emotional responses, sometimes stronger than those elicited by individual memories (even in regard to participants who did not have individually traumatic memories of the conflict). Though the operationalisation of collective memory is here somewhat questionable considering the above discussion on how difficult it is to demarcate between individual and collective memory, this goes some way to showing the power that collective memory can have upon both groups and individuals; power in terms of the emotional reactions that it can spawn. Indeed, human emotion is inherently tied to memory. Memory can often be triggered by experiencing an emotion such as anger, happiness, sadness or nostalgia; while emotions themselves can also be triggered by recounting memories (even ones that we have not lived ourselves) as was seen in Garagozov’s (2016) research. Moreover, Daniel Bar-Tal (2014) has highlighted the role of emotion as one of the central characteristics of collective memory, whereby: “collective memory may raise fear because of past traumatic events, or anger because of remembered unjust acts carried by another groups [sic], or pride because of the memorized victories and heroic acts performed by group members. The emotions provide a particular meaning to the remembered events and facilitate their memorizing” (p. 5).

Indeed, recent research by Arai (2015) has highlighted the emotional strength of collective memories, whereby participants (who had been asked to recount the history of Taiwan, and who were separated into groups of Chinese and Taiwanese) on several occasions shed tears as they recounted “historical events of which they had no direct lived experience,” (p. 281) events which had often taken place many generations before their birth. This not only shows the centrality of emotion, but of extreme emotions such as triumphs and glories, or traumas and tribulations, and how they form an often pivotal part of collective memory.

With these collective memories – and often because of the strong emotional connections associated with them – comes a sense of truth and objectivity in relation to understandings of shared visions and understandings of the past (Bar-Tal, 2014). This is especially true of strongly demarcated groups, where “when different groups possess contrasting narratives of the same events, they often regard their own side’s historical narrative as accurate and accuse their opposition of distorting or ignoring history” (Bilali and Ross, 2012). Because of the strong emotional connection, it becomes hugely difficult to negotiate collective memory or even condone a different narrative of events. However, it is important to here note that social frameworks should not be understood as neatly mirroring societies as a whole, there may be some (often considerable) overlap, however Halbwachs (1992) emphasises that many social frameworks overlap and intermingle within societies, though that there are instances where they may indeed clash in conflict with one another. This is echoed by Tint (2010b) who highlights that within societies there can exist a multiplicity of groups with potentially clashing collective memories, and that “[i]t is through this multiplicity of memories that we begin to see one facet of the emerging relationship between memory and conflict” (p. 241).

Before moving onto this link between conflict and memory, it is important to highlight additional defining characteristics of collective memory, the next being its intrinsic constructivism. As we have seen, collective memory is tied to strong emotions, mutually affecting human interaction within a social framework, as well as a strong sense of objectivity in relation to one’s own group narrative. However, throughout these characteristics there emerges a theme of selective constructivism (Tint, 2010b). This selective constructivism refers to the idea that memory is not an objective or fixed representation of the past (though it may be perceived as such), but one which is purposefully fashioned and that can change to suit a certain narrative over time. Ann Rigney’s (2008) research into the Irish mnemonic tradition exemplifies just this phenomenon by outlining the cultural life of the Irish National War Memorial in Dublin. Built in the 1930’s to memorialise the fallen Irish servicemen of WW1, the monument lay neglected and unopened until the 1990’s, as the memory of Irish participation in the Great War was something that for many decades did not suit the national narrative of independence from Britain, even though around 50,000 Irishmen died fighting in that war (Rigney, 2008).

Rothberg (2009) has also shown how one narrative of memory can selectively overshadow or promote certain events through his analysis of the memory of the Holocaust as compared to that of colonialism. Whereby he shows how memory can become competitive, whereby certain selected narratives of events are compared and contrasted against each other as if in competition: “too often comparison is understood as “equation” – the Holocaust cannot be compared to any other history, the story goes, because it is unlike them all” (Rothberg, 2009, p. 18). Indeed, Rothberg (2009) highlights that memory should not be an exclusive phenomenon. But one which is constantly renegotiated and creates inclusivity – what he deems a ‘multidirectional memory’. However, through the very process of attaching value to certain events or happenings, selectivity and constructivism are unavoidable, as some events will be more or less valued than others, and will thereby feature more or less prominently (or not at all) in a narrative of memory. Central to this process of selection and exclusion, is thereby the balance between remembering and forgetting. This balance has recently been researched by Gordon (2015), who argues that managing this balance – or “tension” (p. 480), as he deems it – is hugely important, especially in respect to traumatic collective memory. This is because the way in which certain events frame or structure a narrative of memory can affect the way in which people perceive their present and future, whereby Gordon argues that “the victims of historical trauma should be discouraged from dwelling on their own victimhood so that their pain does not become the focal point of their existence” (Gordon, 2015, p. 502).

Indeed, several authors have explored and commented on the way in which memory links perceptions of the past, present and future (Bilali and Ross, 2012; Nicholson, 2017; Gordon, 2014; Liu and Hilton, 2005). Throughout this literature, the way in which this link is most commonly made, is through the medium of narrative. From the perspective of social psychology, narratives are inherently connected to memory, whereby they “constitute the very architecture of human thinking as a modality of thought, a mode of operation of mind and a constructive collective tool for remembering and defining reality” (Jovchelovitch, 2012, p. 443). This highlights not only the centrality of narratives to memory, but also how memory can shape the very way in which reality is defined; and therefore, as a consequence, how memory of the past defines people’s perceptions of the present and of the future – an intrinsically powerful tool for endowing legitimacy (Zerubavel, 2003). This phenomenon has previously been researched by Hirschberger and Pyszcynski (2012), who – when interviewing

Israeli’s about the war in Gaza – found that when they reminded the interviewees about the Holocaust prior to asking them about the war in Gaza, the interviewees had an increased likelihood of justifying Palestinian civilian casualties. Moreover, when this rational (of linking perceptions of past, present and future) is applied to how people define reality in relation to conflict, the value of gaining understanding of how people narrate their memory of conflict begins to unveil itself. That through the proliferation of a certain mnemonic narratives, memory can serve as the grounds the perpetuation of a certain conflict merely through the existence of contrasting understandings of what or who is to blame for causing it (Bilali and Ross, 2012). One of the most prolific examples of how mnemonic narratives can contribute to the perpetuation of conflict, is outlined in Bilali and Tropp’s (2012) research on attributions of responsibility in regard to the ethnic conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in Burundi. Specifically interesting in regard to narrative, was the way in which each group (Hutus and Tutsis) overwhelmingly attributed more causation for the instigation of conflict to their respective out-group (and third parties) as opposed to their own group (Bilali and Tropp, 2012). Each group had what Bar-Tal (2014) would refer to as a “collective master narrative [which]… explains the causes of the conflict, describes its nature, refers to major events, presents that image of the rival, portrays own presentation [sic], and makes major attribution of responsibility for the eruption of the conflict, its continuation and the used violence” (p. 8). Collective master narratives (to be referred to henceforth as ‘master narratives’) are therefore closely related to collective memory, in that they serve as an expression of a certain social framework – in this case, an ethnic group – and how they perceive their shared past in relation. Then when taken in relation to a conflict, that this master narrative can serve as a revealing point of analysis for understanding how a certain group attributes causation and instigation, a point that will be further explored in the subsequent section of this chapter as well as being operationalised through the chapter outlining the theoretical framework that will be used to analyse the gathered data. However, this paper will now turn towards considering the literature building on the links between collective memory, narrative and conflict (transformation).

Central characteristics of collective memory:

1. Individual, personal memories and shared histories and understandings of the past are intertwined through social frameworks that form a collective memory. 2. The most prominent memories are often linked to strong emotions such as trauma

or triumph.

3. Because of this strong emotional attachment, collective memories can often be understood by their proponents as the objective truth on how past events unfolded. 4. Collective memory is selectively constructed, some events are promoted or

demoted depending on their narrative compatibility. 5. Collective memory links perceptions of the past, present and future and is most commonly expressed through the medium of narrative. When analysed in relation to conflict, differing groups can have very different narratives of a certain conflict. Linking Memory, Narrative and Conflict (Transformation) In having established the link between memory and narrative, as well as introducing the link between memory and conflict; it is befitting to turn towards the boarder literature that links narrative and conflict so as to fully interlink the three main components of the previously outlined research question (memory, narrative and conflict). This will consequently aid in outlining why narratives serve as a constructive point of analysis – and as a potential opportunity for conflict transformation – when dealing with the memories and stories of conflict affected communities, such as in South Sudan.

In her extensive literature review on the uses of narratology in social and policy studies – narratology here referring to “the theory and study of narrative and narrative structure and the ways they affect our perception” (Czarniawska, 2010, p. 58) – Czarniawska (2010) highlights that over time, narrative analysis has increasingly entered the realm of the social sciences since the height of the “narrative turn” in the 1980’s (p. 59). Her paper also emphasises how narratives elicited by narrative-based interviews (such as the interviews conducted for this paper) often emerge unprompted, as narratives are one of the main ways in which people make sense of the world around them; the analysis of which can therefore be hugely revealing of the structures that people use to construct meaning, such as through collective memory (Czarniawska, 2010). Moreover, in relation to this structuring role of narrative, Hajer and Laws (2008) argue “that narrative and discourse fulfil an essential role in

structuring relations, in determining whether groups turn into opponents rather than collaborators, whether a confrontation leads to joint governance or to conflict” (p. 10). Narrative is thereby not only a common structuring phenomenon in society, but one of the central determinants in how confrontation and conflict is perceived by those involved.

Narrative analysis has been used as a tool of research in several conflict situations, not only in relation to violent conflicts. Verloo (2018) highlights the revealing capacity of narratives can have in divulging liminal critical moments within the context of urban democracies and the conflicts they create. While Cobb (2006) uses narratological tools to map conflict negotiations so as to explore how to identify and create opportunities for transforming the way in which participants dialogically and narratologically engage in conflict. Indeed, this is something that this paper wishes to build on, whereby narratives of memory should not only be understood as a place of division, but also an opportunity, an opportunity for conflict transformation. A pioneer of the conflict transformation school, Lederach (1996) outlined how conflict functions as an intrinsic (and sometimes necessary) part of social interaction, conflict transformation therefore sees conflict as a “nonlinear, cyclical processes” (Strömbom, 2014, p. 172) that does not seek to explicitly resolve a conflict, but to transform the antagonistic interactions within it. Indeed, though much of the literature that links memory, narrative and conflict focuses on processes of conflict ‘resolution’, it is the argument of this paper, especially when considering the complexity and omnipresence of both memory and conflict, that a focus on transforming conflict should serve as the ontological basis for engaging with collective memory in relation to conflict. As has been aforementioned, this link between literature on collective memory and conflict has in recent years led to a questioning of the way in which practitioners engage with memories of conflict. Indeed, authors such as Barkan (2016) have begun to question the paradigmatic foundations from which practitioners commence their interactions with communities that have a long history (and memory) of conflict. Arguing that there are strong limitations to purely pursuing “forensic truth as a form of redress” (Barkan, 2016, p. 24) and that instead multiple narratives from many perspectives should be given space to exist and interact. Whereby, Barkan (2016) emphasises that “[t]he admonition ‘forget about the past’ does not work and ignorance is not a solution. Historical dialogue cannot be ignored because it is viewed as too complicated; it ought to become part of a peacebuilding and conflict resolution” (p. 25). Indeed, in accordance with this nuanced view on how memory should be

studied and engaged with by practitioners, Tint (2010a) has specifically outlined “recommendations for conflict resolution practice” (p. 394) which outlines thirteen points for practitioners to consider when engaging in practices of conflict resolution (or from this paper’s perspective, transformation). These broadly involve building a deep understanding of different groups’ collective memory of conflict, creating designs whereby they are able to share these memories, allowing for (and preparing for) the strong emotional attachment many have to a collective memory, and acknowledging that facilitating an inclusive collective memory can serve to address power imbalances that are often strongly tied to a certain narrative of collective memory (Tint, 2010a).

In sum, there is a broad precedent that emerges from the literature discussed above for using narrative as a medium of analysis in relation to many different types of conflict. This link can (and has) inform(ed) practices of conflict transformation, where narratives can identify both divisions that need redressing, but also opportunities to do so. Indeed, this practical engagement with narratives both as a site of division, but also in terms of identifying an opportunity has been outlined by Cobb (2003). Cobb (2003) argues that narratives on conflict can be analysed to see whether a group is increasingly prone towards narratives of coexistence or narratives that reinforce conflict – though this will be operationalised and explored in detail in the chapter outlining this paper’s theoretical framework. However, in having built a broader understanding on the literature linking the three integral concepts that provide the focus of this paper (narrative, memory and conflict), it is now apt to turn to exploring how these phenomena have been researched in South Sudan and in the region of sub-Saharan Africa at large. The Study of Memory and Conflict in South Sudan The study of memory has traditionally been an inherently Eurocentric field (Cesari and Rigney, 2016), however, in moving away from bias, the broader study of memory in Sub-Saharan Africa has over the last decades begun to grow. The main focus of this body of research – at least in linking conflict and memory – has been on the role of trauma within (perceived) ‘post-conflict’ reconciliation – ‘perceived’ is here bracketed because post-conflict is an unhelpful term from the perspective of conflict transformation, whereby conflict is intrinsic to society and cannot (or should not) be completely removed. This is illustrated by

the proliferation of research that has centred on the role of memory in cases such as South Africa – where the focus has been on the role of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the effects of political violence on collective remembrance, and the under-researched perspective of feminism (Ally, 2011; Ephgrave, 2015; Mitchell and Pithouse-Morgan, 2014; Norval, 1998); and Rwanda – where much research has been conducted on the role of personal and group narratives of memory in relation to political violence (Eramian, 2014; Bilali and Tropp, 2012). However, South Sudan has been the subject of little very little research on linking collective memory to conflict, and even less in outlining how this can be operationalised to inform processes of conflict transformation. It is however important to outline this literature so as to identify the precedents and gaps within it. Most prominent among this literature is Skårås and Breidlid’s (2016) research on the link between a collective memory of the violent past of South Sudan and how it is narrated, through an analysis of textbooks, course material, classroom observations and essays written by South Sudanese secondary school students. Interestingly they found evidence of a very one-sided narrative of violent conflict in South Sudan, whereby the predominantly Arab north and the Khartoum government were depicted in an exclusively negative format, while no mention was made of the root-causes of the conflict or the role of southerners in the conflict; nor was any reference made to the current conflict or inter-ethnic conflicts in South Sudan (Skårås and Breidlid, 2016). Their research highlights a phenomenon that was previously established in this chapter, that of the selective constructivism of collective memory. That there is a clear bias evident in the state-endorsed syllabus for school children, a conscious effort to promote a certain narrative of events while selectively forgetting others – much like the case of the Irish war memorial outlined by Rigney (2008) – there is a power in being able to set the mnemonic agenda. In building on the power that is manifest in narratives of collective memory, recent research by Thiong (2018) has highlighted the use of narratives of ethnic rivalries, which have been used by elites “to promote hate and to generate fear, creating a landscape in which political elites in one group fear each other as well as their elite rivals from other groups because allies and enemies frequently change” (p. 614). This shows how certain narratives can selectively be used in order to mobilise support for a certain cause. Indeed, this mobilisation of narratives of fear has been recorded elsewhere in South Sudan by Laudati (2011), who highlights that narratives of victimisation were used in order to legitimise Dinka (the largest

tribe in South Sudan) control over certain territories that were not historically theirs. This in many ways overlaps with the legitimising power of agenda-setting that narratives of memory can imbue, something that was previously highlighted in this chapter in relation to the theories of Zerubavel (2003). The literature focused on engaging with such memories of conflict (through conflict transformation) is however very sparse. There are some stringent links to engaging practically with a memory of conflict outlined by Njeru (2011), who highlights the importance of incorporating a “wartime history of individuals” when engaging in DDR (disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration) practices with youths in Southern Sudan. However, this is operationalised in relation to individual memory of trauma and does not incorporate theories on collective memory, though the focus on the potential of youth in relation to breaking cycles of conflict is an interesting point of analysis in relation to memory and one which should continue to be pursued and researched.

This shows that despite the lack of extensive research in linking collective memory, narrative and conflict (transformation) in South Sudan, there is evidence of a conscious selectivity and construction of mnemonic narratives in the educational system (Skårås and Breidlid, 2016). While Thiong (2018) and Laudati (2011) have shown that certain narratives (tied to memory) have power and can be mobilised to achieve certain political outcomes. However, memory within the context of conflict in South Sudan needs to be more clearly researched and analysed in relation to narrative analysis so as to ascertain not just divides, but also opportunities for conflict transformation on a mnemonic level. This chapter has argued that there are five central characteristics that define collective memory. These being its ability to intrinsically interlink personal memories with shared historical narratives; the role of strong emotions (such as triumph or trauma) in shaping which memories are most prominent; how the constituent members of a social framework can feel a sense of objectivity in relation to how past events unfolded within a collective memory; that collective memory is an inherently selectively constructed phenomenon; and finally, how it has the ability to link perceptions of the past with the present and the future, most commonly expressed through the medium of narrative. When applied within the context of violent conflict (such as in South Sudan), the role of collective memory can potentially play a hugely powerful role in perpetuating (or escalating) a conflict or preventing its transformation by legitimising a certain narrative of past events. It can shape understandings of the present and

perceptions of the future in relation to a selectively constructed narrative of past events; one which proponents may perceive to be objectively representative of the past and which are consequently tied to strong and forceful emotions.

In taking these characteristics as the foundation of this paper’s understanding of collective memory, it can be argued that there is an intrinsic link between memory and conflict, as well as memory and narrative. Therefore, these links (especially the latter) will serve as the motivation and grounds for the utilisation of theories of narrative analysis, which will in turn be operationalised in order to serve as analytical tools to be applied to the data gathered for this paper – specifically the theories of Zerubavel (2003) and Cobb (2003). Indeed, it has been outlined that there is a strong precedent for using narratological tools for analysing the dynamics of conflict. That these tools can be used, not only for identifying mnemonic division, but also in identifying opportunities for processes of conflict transformation – a trend that has in recent literature been emphasised so that practitioners can actively engage with conflicts in a constructive and effective manner through the medium of memory (Tint, 2010a).

In applying the concepts outlined above to the case of South Sudan, the literature connecting memory to narrative and conflict (transformation) was consequently analysed. Most prominently within this literature was the research that suggests that certain (selectively constructivist) narratives of past violent conflict are being perpetuated by the South Sudanese state (Skårås and Breidlid, 2016); while it was highlighted that certain narratives are used by elites in order to mobilise action in pursuit of political or territorial gains (Thiong, 2018; Laudati, 2011). However, as has been aforementioned, this literature is somewhat sparse, with very little actually engaging in analysing data which can inform process of conflict transformation for practitioners on the ground. Therefore, this paper will argue that there is a need to study how South Sudanese collective memory of violent conflict is constituted, and how this can be analysed through the medium of narrative so as to inform processes of conflict transformation. In doing so, this paper will now turn towards the methodology that was designed and operationalised so as to begin to fill the gap in the literature outlined above.

3. Research Design

Before commencing this chapter outlining the chosen research design that shaped the data gathering process for this paper, it is important to begin by demarcating the ethical considerations taken in this research. This is because these considerations subsequently informed every decision taken in relation to how the interviewer would engage with the interviewees in the process of recording their stories, narratives and memories of violent conflict. Firstly, the do no harm principal was incorporated into every decision taken in this research, whereby it was of paramount importance to leave the field as it was found and to not adversely affect those who partook in the research process. In doing so, a design was consciously created whereby anonymity was assured (which is why interviewees will subsequently be referred to as interviewee A, B, C and so on), permission was granted for the recording and utilisation of data collected, each interviewee was told that they did not have to recount memories that they did not want to, and that they could rescind any information divulged in the interviews at their pleasure. In practicality, the interviews were largely positive experiences – though one interviewee did have a negative experience of recounting their memory of conflict. Moreover, this author is (at the time of writing) still actively in contact with the interviewees and will meet and discuss the findings with them, and listen to their suggestions and thoughts. As ultimately, this author is merely the harbinger of their memory – these are their memories and their stories, and it is only because of them that this research has taken place. Subsequently, this paper will now move towards analysing the interview method that was utilised in the data gathering process of this paper.

The Interviewing Method

As has been established in the literature review, one of the most prominent ways that memory is expressed, is through the medium of narrative. Therefore, it was important to provide a design whereby interviewees would be allowed to develop their own narratives within the frame of conflict in South Sudan, one where they could initially choose to move temporally (between past, present and future) in whichever direction they wished (in line with the findings in the literature review). However, it was also important to structure the interviews in a way that led the participants towards a narrative reflection on their memory

and that allowed for probing where necessary. Therefore, all the interviews followed a semi-structured method of practice, with a focus on narrative development (Halperin and Heath, 2012). This method was chosen because it allows for the creation of set of guiding questions (which will be outlined below) that facilitated a certain level of uniformity and comparability between the interviews; while still placing the emphasis on “how the interviewee frames and understands issues and events” (Bryman, 2012, p. 471). Moreover, it also allows for a level of flexibility to focus in on certain topics raised in each interview, while also creating a design which could allow for interviewees to have more time to reflect upon what they themselves found most important and answer accordingly (Bryman, 2012). In pursuing these narrative focused semi-structured interviews, it was important to engage in long yet flexible interviews that allowed the generation of thick and rich data as a central measure of reliability. Indeed, in line with Flyvbjerg (2004), it is the argument of this paper that “‘thick’ and hard-to-summarise narratives… [are] not a problem” (p. 430) in case study research. To the contrary, they can serve as one of the main mechanisms for ensuring validity in qualitative research by providing as detailed a description of the actual narrative in question as possible (Creswell, 2009). Moreover, by pursuing richness of detail by allowing (or facilitating) respondents to narrate their memories, the interviewing process followed a more inductive methodology of data gathering so as to better compile data in line with what Argyris (1976) calls a “theories-in-use” as opposed to a “theory espoused” (p. 43). The former being emblematic of how people actually act or think – or in this case, how they narrate their memory – while the latter being how people themselves think that they act (which is often not in line with the former). The interview method depicted above was consequently applied to a sample of eight South Sudanese people living in the Netherlands, the makeup of which will be further outlined below. Study Sample The sample consisted of 8 South Sudanese people (5 men and 3 women) living in the Netherlands. Their ages ranged between 35 and 57, with most respondents’ age being in the mid to latter end of that scale. The sample was a purposive one (Patton, 2002), with the criteria based around South Sudanese decent (that they were born and had lived in South Sudan but had since moved to the Netherlands); age (20 years or older); gender (where the

aim was an even gender split); and ability to speak English. The criteria of South Sudanese decent was chosen so that all the respondents would have both a lived memory of South Sudan, as well as a reason for engaging in the communicable collective memory of the broader South Sudanese people in diaspora in the Netherlands. Consequently, the criteria of age was consistent with Tint (2010b), where “the interest was in choosing participants who had learned the significant aspects of their cultural history through social transmission rather than direct experience”, something that was more likely if the members of the sample were past their formative years (p. 372). The sample collection process was based around snowball sampling (Halperin and Heath, 2012), with the original point of contact being PAX (a Dutch peacebuilding NGO based in Utrecht), who consequently provided an introduction to a central contact within the South Sudanese diasporic community, from whom all the participants in the research were sourced. The focus of the interview process was on the quality and richness of the narratives developed by respondents and not on the quantity of interviews as only a very large sample would be able to be representative of the South Sudanese population in the Netherlands. However, in the interest of diversifying the results, a conscious effort was made from the beginning to try not to overrepresented any ethnic group, tribe or clan within the sample. Finally, though ideally saturation would be used as a criterion to account for the size of the sample, this was not possible firstly because of time and resource constraints, but also because the actual process of finding respondents proved difficult. This was primarily in relation to finding female respondents, whereby all but one of the potential male respondents answered positively to being interviewed; while consequently it was difficult finding female respondents for the research, whereby of those who were contacted, several did not wish to participate or did not respond to attempts to make contact. This lack of saturation as a criterion may have weakened the quality of the findings, however this was in part controlled for by pursuing a deeper richness of data in the development of the participants’ narratives (Patton, 2002). This chapter will now move towards outlining how this sample will be conceptualised in relation to its function as a case study.

The Case (Selection)

The choice of case focused on the South Sudanese community living in the Netherlands. In this paper, they will be analysed as an extreme case, whereby methodologically, an extreme case lies closer to qualitative methodology as it is associated with hypothesis generating research questions such as the one pursued in this paper (Gerring, 2006). Moreover, the case should be considered extreme in respect to the individuals that constitute the sample, many of the members of the sample were directly forced to leave their country of origin because of conflict. It was therefore predicted that the interviewees would have personal experiences of violent conflict and not just in the indirect collective mnemonic sense that was outlined in many of the cases from the literature review. This case can also be considered extreme in relation to the role of memory in diasporic or expatriate communities, whereby recent studies have shown that memory (especially in relation to extreme emotions such as trauma or loss) can be transnational in nature and continue to affect communities which reside outside of their countries of origin (Gül, 2018). Indeed, such memories can often become part of a diasporic identity and therefore tie them mnemonically to their country of origin (Gilbert, 2018). As with most qualitative research, the aim of this case-study is not to be generalizable, but to analyse and investigate a certain particularity (Bryman, 2012). The role of memory in conflict is an inherently particular (and contextually specific) phenomenon, indeed, especially so when analysing how a certain group narrates their memory. However, this extreme case can serve to inform and prepare future research projects with communities based in South Sudan, whereby many of the interviewees were actively engaged with their country of origin through strong familial and economic ties. Moreover (as will be seen in the subsequent chapter), it was also emphasised by the interviewees that many of the divides perpetuated through conflict in South Sudan were in many ways also mirrored in their community in the Netherlands (allowing for a certain level of comparability).

There are indeed several precedents within the literature (linking conflict and collective memory) for selecting a case whose constituent sample are not based in their country of origin. Most prominently is Tint’s (2010a) research, that used a sample made up of Palestinians and Jewish Israelis who were both “from the Middle East and the United States” (p. 371). Tint (2010a) did not distinguish between those born in the US compared to those

born in the Middle East, a choice that was justified by arguing that, “the choice of including participants from both regions was rooted in the desire to explore issues of memory as they affected a wider cultural group and not those necessarily living with the conflict daily” (p. 371). This is a methodological perspective that this paper wishes to echo, whereby the very collective nature of memory means that even groups that leave their country of origin often continue to be actively constituent of the social framework of collective memory from whence they came. This latter point especially allows links to be made between collective memory of South Sudanese people in the Netherlands and South Sudanese people in South Sudan. However, having established the grounds and rational for case selection, this chapter will now turn towards outlining how the interviews were structured through the use of an interview guide. Interview Guide Six central groups of questions were outlined to provide some guiding structure to the semi-structured interview process and so as to elicit a narrative reflection while still providing flexibility and opportunity to probe certain themes. These followed the subsequent chronological order:

1. Background questions to gather demographic information followed by personal questions about their memories to begin to elicit reflections on their past such as: “What was your life like in South Sudan?” or “Where did you grow up in South Sudan?” – The interviews begun this way so as to ease the interviewees slowly into a process of reflection by first asking them to consider their individual memories. The questions were framed in a neutral way without prompting them to narrate memories of conflict so that they themselves could demarcate the importance of conflict in their stories. 2. Questions referring to the present state of South Sudan, such as: “If you were going to explain the current state of South Sudan to somebody who didn’t know anything about the country, how would you do so?” – Again, these questions were not framed within the context of conflict as this therefore allowed the interviewees more freedom in driving the creation of their own narrative, while also providing the opportunity for them to describe the present state of South Sudan by choosing to reference the past

as well as the future (a decision that was informed by Cobb’s (2003) analytical criterion for narrative analysis, which will be explored in further detail in the theoretical framework of this paper).

3. Questions eliciting a story of conflict in South Sudan, such as: “If you were going to tell a story of conflict in South Sudan to somebody who didn’t know anything about it, how would that story go? Where would it start?” – This also involved probing questions in relation to attribution of causation, identification of protagonists and antagonists as well as personal memories. This line of questioning was chosen so as to allow the interviewees to explicitly reflect on their shared past; and to frame the interviewees memories within the context of a story so that they could choose to incorporate historical narratives, other people’s stories and their own memoires as they deemed fit. Indeed, this is in line with Czarniawska (2010), who argues that narrative reflections can be prompted by asking such question as: “can you tell me the story of… “ or “can you recall when you first…” (p.63).

4. Questions referring to the future of South Sudan, such as: “Taking your story into account, what would you then see as the future of South Sudan?” – This line of questioning was chosen explicitly to prompt reflections about the future. Where the focus lay on revealing the interviewees perceptions, their worries and their hopes in relation to the future of their country.

5. Questions eliciting a reflection on their own story and their place within a social framework of memory, such as: “What have you based your story on? How did you construct the story (events, protagonists, antagonists, causation) that you told me and what led you to those choices?” and “Do you think other people (in your community) would tell a similar story to you?” – These questions were outlined in order to prompt the interviewees to reflect on how they constructed their stories and what influenced their memories. 6. Concluding questions such as: “Is there anything else you would have liked me to ask or that you think is important to mention?” – This allowed the interviewees to bring up any topics which they believed to be important, but that had not raised in the interview. It also allowed the interviewees to reflect upon the interview as a whole and convey how they felt about it and about the research project in general.

The first two groupings of questions ensured that each respondent could develop their own narratives without being prompted towards a certain temporal direction. Where, by being asked about the current state of South Sudan, respondents could choose how to develop their own narrative in describing their home country, one where conflict was not yet mentioned in the questioning. Consequently, the following questions were designed to facilitate reflection on both the past and the future, in relation to conflict, so as to ensure the development of a full narrative, but also allow the respondents to reflect upon their own choices within the context of their community, and to accompany their accounts with any additional information that they felt was needed. In finishing this methodological chapter, it is important to reflect upon the research process (and how it was operationalised in practicality) and the role of the researcher within this.

Reflections

Though the interviewing process was ultimately a success that provided eight very detailed and rich narrative accounts of memory and conflict within the South Sudanese community in the Netherlands. It is important to reflect upon how the research process functioned in practicality and the role of the researcher within this, as this may have affected the findings.

The first reflection on the method is in regard to the snowball sampling that was employed in order to gather interviewees for the research. Though the process was consistent with other similar sampling methodologies (Halperin and Heath, 2012), it should be highlighted that all of the respondents stemmed originally from one initial point of contact, from whom all consequent participants in the research were contacted. Indeed, all but one of the participants in the research were members of an active South Sudanese community group, many of whom knew each other prior to the interviewing process and who were in some cases in contact with each other in relation to the research prior to their respective interviews. This may have affected the expectations and preparation of some of the respondents, though this did not result in any explicitly anomalous findings.

Secondly, the interviews that were conducted in person were able to elicit rich narratives from the interviewees. However, one interview was conducted via skype, this led to a very different experience that did not create the same intimacy and trust that allowed for

the divulging of narratives that many of the other interviews allowed for. There was a certain distancing that removed a lot of the empathy from the conversation, and because of the poor quality of the connection, the microphone and the speakers, there was a lot of miscommunication. This can quite clearly be seen in the transcript whereby the frequency between questions and answers were much more regular compared to the other interviews. Thirdly, in regard to how the interviews were framed prior to meeting the interviewee, and how expectations and preparations were managed; the aim was to frame the questions in the same way for each interviewee through a short description of the research project and method. This was achieved for the most part, however one interviewee was involved at an earlier stage in the data gathering process so they were exposed to different information as to the aim of the research (though this did not result in any anomalous findings in the transcript or in the narrative telling). Most were given a regimented summary of the research focus in writing, while for others this was read over the phone. However, as many of the interviewees knew each other and discussed the interview process with other potential participants (often after they had themselves been interviewed), this may have skewed expectations of the interview (though this did not result in any anomalous findings in the transcript or in the narrative telling).

Lastly, this section will reflect upon the role of the researcher within this project. Overall, the interactions that were had with the interviewees were positive ones with many interviewees being very thankful for the opportunity to relate their memories (though some were visibly affected when recounting traumatic memoires). The researcher’s role as an outsider was here a largely positive one, as it was possible to engage with the interviewees and analyse the data from a relatively inductive perspective; whereby there was no previously conflict of interest in regard to any specific group or community in South Sudan. However, as the dynamic of the interviews was between (official) researcher and those whom were researched, this may have shaped the interviewees’ stories and narratives whereby some of the interviewees actively sought to confirm whether they had provided the ‘correct’ answers to the questions asked in the interviews. This was in part controlled for by emphasising at the start of interviews that there was no right or wrong answers to the questions that would be asked, yet it is important to note such dynamics as they may have affected the substance of the data.

Therefore, in having established (and reflected upon) the method through which the data for this paper was collected, it is now important to establish how said data will be analysed through the medium of a theoretical framework.

4. Theoretical Framework Operationalising Collective Memory As has been established in the literature review and emphasised in the methodology, the central point of analysis for this paper will be conducted using the medium of narrative. Its intrinsic link to collective memory in terms of its combinatorial qualities (in linking perceptions of past, present and future), means that it serves as one of the most prominent means through which people can dialogically express their memory. However, what methods can be used to analyse a narrative and what can this tell us about the relation between memory and conflict? Moreover, what roles can narratives of memory have in relation to power and legitimacy, and how can this be analysed within the context of South Sudan? In order to answer these questions, it is important to develop a framework through which to unpick the stories that have been collected so as to analyse them in narrative form. In order to do this, the previously outlined characteristics of collective memory will be operationalised to identify how South Sudanese people in the Netherlands construct their collective memory. Subsequently, theories on narrative analysis within the context of collective memory and conflict – primarily by Zerubavel (2003), Bamberg (2004) and Gordon (2015) – will be operationalised so as to isolate and analyse the presence and constituent elements of a master narrative and what role this plays within the context of a collective memory of conflict. Lastly, theories on identity-based conflicts by Cobb (2003) will be utilised so as to analyse whether these narratives propagate a picture which is conflict reinforcing or supportive of coexistence – with a specific focus on the role of hope within conflict transformation. Firstly, in returning to the five main characteristics of collective memory outlined in the literature review of this paper, it is important to outline how these will be operationalised in practice. 1. Individual, personal memories and shared histories and understandings of the past are intertwined through social frameworks that form a collective memory. 2. The most prominent memories are often linked to strong emotions such as

3. Because of this strong emotional attachment, collective memories can often be understood by their proponents as the objective truth on how past events unfolded.

4. Collective memory is selectively constructed, some events are promoted or demoted depending on their narrative compatibility.

5. Collective memory links perceptions of the past, present and future and is most commonly expressed through the medium of narrative. When analysed in relation to conflict, differing groups can have very different narratives of a certain conflict.

As was highlighted in the previous chapter on methodology, the interviews were structured in a way that aimed to elicit reflections and links between perceptions of the past, present and future in relation to conflict in South Sudan. However, though narrative is theoretically and empirically linked to this phenomenon (Bilali and Ross, 2012; Nicholson, 2017; Gordon, 2014; Liu and Hilton, 2005), it is important to explicitly outline how such a narrative is constructed along the lines of these five characteristics. Therefore, the stories and narratives elicited from the data will be analysed so as to ascertain the presence or absence of the aforementioned characteristics, but also to highlight how each characteristic is exemplified and in relation to what or whom. When do interviewees move from broad historical narrative to personal story and is this change linked to extreme emotions (if so, which ones and why)? How staunchly do they hold to their accounts and what does this say about the events that have been most prominently selected? In analysing the presence or absence of these characteristics and how they are exemplified in the data, this paper will be able to more confidently move into the subsequent analytical section which will seek to theorise as to what such a collective memory represents within the context of conflict. Emplotment and the Balance of Remembrance The second section of the analysis will be based on the theories of Zerubavel (2003). These theories provide several prominent analytical tools for analysing how memory becomes structured through the medium of narrative, and what this can tell us about how a certain group or society has constructed meaning in relation to their shared past. As was previously

mentioned in the literature review, one of the main tenants of collective memory is that those who are part of the social framework that are the constituents of a certain collective memory, often believe that their recollection of past events is true and objective, though that this is seldom the case because of the aforementioned constructivist nature of collective memory. Indeed, though many events or happenings in history transpire in chronological succession or are interrelated in some way, it is through the medium of narrative that these become ordered in the format of a story and become consequentially and causally related, a process that Zerubavel (2003) entitles: “emplotment” (p. 13). It is through this process of emplotment – A term originally coined by Hayden White (Czarniawska, 2010) – “that we usually manage to provide both past and present events with historical meaning” (Zerubavel, 2003, p. 13), the result of which, from an analytical perspective, Zerubavel eloquently summarises and is worth quoting in full:

“Approaching the phenomenon of memory from a strictly formal narratological perspective, we can actually examine the structure of our collective narration of the past just as we examine the structure of any fictional story. And Indeed, adopting such a pronouncedly morphological stance helps reveal the highly schematic formats along which historical narratives usually proceed. And Although actual reality may never “unfold” in such a neat format formulaic manner, those scriptlike plotlines are nevertheless the form in which we often remember it, as we habitually reduce highly complex event sequences to inevitably simplistic, one-dimensional visions of the past” (Zerubavel, 2003, p. 13). It is this reductionist role of narrative that makes it so valuable in analysing complex conflicts such as in South Sudan. From this analytical perspective, one can extrapolate which events are most prolific within this story, who features in antagonistic or protagonist roles, as well as where the story starts and ends. Zerubavel (2003) highlights several different mechanisms of emplotment that can be used to analyse the way in which groups construct a collective memory that can “provide meanings to the past that legitimate present claims and acts” (Bar-Tal, Oren and Nets-Zehngut, 2014, p. 664). In relation to the way that interviewees were prompted to recount narratives through the methodological design of the data