Overview
History
Identity
Perceptions
Trauma and Healing

Overview

So much less tangible than the physical destruction of war, the effects of conflict on the psychology of individuals and a society are as profound as they are neglected. If the attitudes that lead to conflict are to be mitigated, and if it is taken that psychology drives attitudes and behaviours of individuals and their collectivities, then new emphasis must be placed on understanding the social psychology of conflict and its consequences. The suffering and trauma that are the results of war need to be addressed and prioritised in plans for peace. Effective means for dealing with these less visible consequences of violent conflict must be developed if a true and sustained peace is to be realized.

History

Any analysis of conflict requires learning its history, the progression of events which led to the eruption of violence. As groups or nations interact with each other, patterns of interaction develop over time. Iterated experience leads to the formation and solidification of beliefs and perceptions of self and other. While this can be a positively reinforcing process in which the relationship between the two parties is based on trust and cooperation, in situations of conflict such processes are largely negative. If the history shared between two nations is competitive- either over resources or over power- then the other party is viewed as a threat. Wars fought in the past will create a collective history, the loss and suffering transferred in collective memory from one generation to the next. When there is a history of domination of one party over the other, there is little basis for trust or cooperation. Each of these past experiences lays the foundation for interactions in the present and the future.

As history builds upon itself, individuals and societies mobilize against the negative other, and soon define themselves according to their opposition to that other. Continuing conflict or threats of conflict lead to the formation of vested interests, expressed in the various aspects of war, defence and opposition. Kelman includes such vested interests as those of the arms and weapons industry, the military, paramilitary and guerrilla forces, and political groups whose very existence is a product or instigating factor of the conflict. Each of these interests becomes an integral component of the conflict dynamic, as ending the conflict effectively threatens their own existence. The longer the conflict continues, the more assured is the continuation of their operations.

In the social psychological analysis of conflict, great emphasis is placed on the importance of acknowledging history. Previous wars fought, previous aggressions committed, or previous actions which led to the loss of trust are not easily forgotten. Denying these past realities does not remove them from history. On the contrary, denying claims rooted in history creates fear and insecurity, challenging the existence of other groups and nations. Denying historic claims to nationhood and associated notions of identity can exacerbate tensions and heighten conflict. It is important to acknowledge the negative experiences and consequences of history between parties in order to reduce tensions. Tensions can thus be limited to contemporary issues over which control and change can be affected.

The processes of history thus institute the relations between groups and nations. Usually history contributes to the formation of a weltanschaung - or group identity- for those involved. History contributes to the formation of perceptions of the other, and cindentrally, to the formation of one?s own identity. Viewing history as solid and unchanging, memories can become modern realities, forcing perceptions and identities to become dangerously entrenched. But acknowledging the aspects of history in the national discourse, specifically its darker aspects, allows for at least the possibility of positive transformation, where lessons can be learned and new relationships built.

Identity

Identity can be described as the norms, beliefs, practices and traditions with which one engages one's environment. Self-perception underlies the notion of identity, a pivotal component of social psychological analysis. Identity and perceptions of the self provide the lens through which one views others. Identity is not an immutable concept, rather, it forms and changes depending on the particular historical moment. Conceptions of identity influence the process of conflicts. Yet identity is still overlooked when attempting to understand the origins of conflict, or in conceptualizing its management. This can be very dangerous, as "dismissing or ignoring the identities of component groups in a country is not only to deny them their sense of dignity, but also to disregard their unique cultural and environmental experiences, skills, and capabilities for a self-sustaining approach to the challenges of their context. As Francis Deng suggests this is a fundamental incapacitation which any group can be expected to resist.

As described by Erikson, identity becomes important in the event of a national crisis, where individuals and groups are forced into a revolution of awareness. At the state-level, self-awareness is transformed into a collective nation-awareness, usually evolving into nationalism, which can be defined as the loyalty individuals feel towards their nation. Notions of nationalism do not necessarily preclude a prejudice against non-members, what Druckman calls an ethnocentric patriotism. At its most positive, nationalism can be a driving force of pride and innovation. But in negative terms- in expressions of ethnocentric patriotism- nationalism can increase the perception of exclusion by non-members. If leaders capitalize on these feelings of exclusion by appealing to their own nationalistic cause, tensions can easily escalate.

The fluid adaptability of identity reveals its vast potential as a tool for conflict management. While national identity can easily become a negative influence, it can just as easily be transformed to a positive impetus for peace. Intentional manipulation of any national identity should inspire wariness- as exemplified with the rise of hyper-nationalist movements or of calls to genocide and holocaust- yet leaders and peacemakers can affect significant positive change through identity transformation. Increasing awareness of the self and supporting a more equitable perception of others can be facilitated through cross-cultural exchanges, or high-level and highly visible dialogues. Sharing of each group's unique history, traditions and culture are all positive initiatives that mutually reinforce one's own and the other's identity.

Perceptions

In relations between nations and groups, perceptions are formed by interactions experienced over time. Values of and threats from others, power distribution and resource control, each contribute to the formation of perceptions. The realist school of international relations theory describes conflict as a result of a shift in power and the display of relative strength. Amplifying this in social psychological terms, it is the perception of power, rather than the actual possession of power, which is important. Power is most often perceived in military, economic or political terms. If these terms are perceived as zero-sum, it is likely that conflict will erupt or escalate; the likelihood of violence is greatest when parties see themselves as near equals. However, if the terms of conflict can be moved from zero-sum to positive sum, then options for conflict management are greatly augmented.

Kelman's exposition of mirror image theory describes how parties develop parallel images of the other, with self-perceptions as largely positive, while perceptions of the other are mostly negative. Violence and aggressiveness become associated with the other party while virtue and justice are qualities possessed by one self or one's own group. As stated by Druckman, Deutsch's folk theory of war, in which one side perceives itself as only good and the other side as only evil, can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where violence rapidly escalates. The best tool to counter the negative effects of mirror-imaging and the good versus evil dialectic is empathy, something rarely found in the realm of international relations.

Perceptions are formed early in life, and unless otherwise challenged, continue to solidify. The danger with perceptions is that, while they are drawn from reality, over time they create reality: the self-fulfilling prophecy. However, as argued by Druckman, perceptions are not templates but rather imperfect images of reality developed through social experience. In other words, perceptions of others can be changed. New perspectives are learned; values and interests are communicated through the sharing of experiences. International exchange programs and problem-solving workshops are the most promising methods to change perceptions. Such Practices are also valuable in building trust, opening communication, increasing sensitivity and augmenting perspectives of the other. These bridge-building initiatives allow perceptions of the other to change. With this comes a change in self-perception.

Trauma and Healing

The psychosocial effects of violent conflict are by their nature difficult to see. This lack of visibility has kept the mental health consequences of violence from receiving the necessary priority in emergency and long-term reconstruction efforts. Trauma associated with the experience of violent conflict commonly manifests itself as psychiatric disorders. Depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are examples of the many ways in which mental and emotional suffering can be expressed in individuals.

Mental health issues entail great suffering on the individual level. If many individuals are unable to go through the process of healing, there will be broader social, political and economic repercussions. Such factors as work capacity and productivity will be negatively affected. These socio-economic effects have grave implications for the peacebuilding process, and must be addressed as early as possible. Diagnosis of and treatment, however, require professional and instrumental resources, neither of which is easily acquired in post-conflict situations. Again, this calls for a new priority on treating mental health in reconstruction and peacebuilding efforts.

When treatment is provided on the individual and communal level, strategies must be culturally adapted. It is crucial that these strategies be in accord with community and familial norms. Processes of traditional healing, where present, should be integrated.