Dialogue and Radical Disagreement

In recent years dialogue has been integrated as a method within conflict resolution, and discussions within the field concentrate on the theme of communication and how successful conflict resolution has been in responding to radical disagreement among the protagonists of a conflict. Ramsbotham, Miall and Woodhouse suggest that three dominant different types of communication exist within the field of conflict resolution: 1) interactive conflict resolution, 2) dialogical conflict resolution and Gadamerian hermeneutics and 3) discursive conflict transformation and Habermasian critical theory.²⁹ The first approach is exemplified with the work of Jay Rothman,³⁰where the aim is to create an atmosphere where mutual understanding and perceptions of the other develop, and the conflict is perceived as a shared problem. This process is conducted through dialogue. The dialogue does not deal with radical disagreements but mainly seeks to understand the other and how they can cooperate to promote peace. The second approach to communication, the dialogical conflict resolution and Gadamerian hermeneutics, aims to reach an understanding through a dialogical exchange of views via mutual translation into a common language. The aim of intergroup dialogue is to study oneself and the other as equals, where the dialogue leads to a “fusion of horizon”³¹. Although the capacity to promote peace is not denied in these approaches by anyone, a number of conflict resolvers and conflict transformers have criticized these approaches for unmasking the radical disagreement at stake and for ignoring asymmetric relations among the parties³². Among them is Vivienne Jabri who argues that these approaches do not “challenge the basis of the militarist and exclusionist identities which enable war as a form of human conduct”³³.

28 Ramsbotham, Miall and Woodhouse: 2005: 288-300.

29 Ibid.

30 See Rothman, Jay: Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, organizations, and communities. San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass: 1997.

31 Ramsbotham, Miall and Woodhouse: 2005: 293.

32 See above, in addition to Jabri: 1996:156.

33 Jabri: 1996:156.

3 A Critical Approach 79 Jabri suggests a critical approach to dialogue which is connected to her social theory of conflict. I will therefore briefly present her social theory, before I explain her suggestion on how to deal with radical disagreement in dialogue. Jabri uses both political and social theory to develop a critical analysis of war and violent conflict. The main objective of her study is to uncover the discursive and institutional processes which reproduce war and violent conflict as aspects of human condition. Jabri`s study is inspired by Anthony Gidden’s structuration theory in relation to the fact that there is presumed to be an ontological relationship between action and structure, or between the action by the members of a society and the structure of that society. Jabri conceptualizes conflict as a social phenomenon where a dialectic relationship exists between the members of the society and the dominant structures in that society, which allows social change. According to Jabri her approach: “allows an ontological discourse on the place of war in the constitutive relationship between self and society, the construction of identity, and the institutional and normative orders which are implicated in the reproduction of violent conflict as a social continuity”³⁴.

The members of a society are still perceived as situated actors, which means that they are born into a specific social system with a set of framework of meaning and a set of dominant discourses and institutions which influence their practical consciousness:

Individuals always stand in relation to specific histories, memories, ideologies, symbolic systems, languages and geographic locations ... All individuals are “positioned” on specific locations along the structural continuities of social systems, in form of symbolic orders, normative expectations and power relations.³⁵

According to this theory, the possibilities to promote social change in a society are always limited by a set of cultural and contextual constraints. The possibility to promote social change is related to the dialectic relationship between the members of a society and the structural organization of that society. In this way the actors engaged in a dialogue are also part of the system they were born into, but nevertheless they have the ability to promote change if they understand the system. In the following I will presented the study by Jabri as a threefold strategy for investigation to address the problem within societies plagued by a political conflict: First, to present what she calls ‘discourse on violence‘. Second: how to identify an independent locus of a transformative ‘discourse of peace‘. And third: to invocate Habermasian discourse ethics as a baseline for a critical approach.³⁶

34 Jabri:1996: vii. The threefold strategy of Jabri is also mentioned in the introduction to this dissertation.

35 Jabri:1996: 130. See also Jabri:1996:135.

36 Ramsbotham, Miall and Woodhouse: 2005:296. They divide Jabri`s study in a threefold strategy.

Jabri`s main argument concerning what she calls discourses on violence is her conceptualization of conflict as constructed discourse “constituted around the construction of a discourse of exclusion.”<sup>37</sup>An important argument in Jabri`s writings is how inter-state conflict and inter-communal conflicts cannot be understood fully by only looking at the leadership`s decisions-making, but “calls for uncovering the continuities in social life which enable war and give legitimacy, backed by discursive and institutional structures.”<sup>38</sup> Jabri`s primary assumption is that “war or violent conflict are social phenomena emerging through, and constitutive of, social practices which have, through time and across space, rendered war an institutional form that is largely seen an inevitable and at times acceptable form of human conduct”³⁹. Although Jabri recognizes war as a response to external conditions,⁴⁰ she puts a focus on how to uncover the processes which often occurs once violent conflict comes to define a relationship. She is interested in how the discourse of war aims to construct “a mythology based on the inclusion and exclusion”⁴¹ and how this discourse not only defines an enemy, but also “incorporates the inclusion of texts which valorise the history and cause of one party to a conflict while depicting the claims of the enemy as unfounded, unjust or even diabolical”⁴². The hegemony or dominant voice within the public space is central for the influence on the socially constructed identity⁴³. According to Jabri:

The ability to consolidate and reproduce authoritative power is dependent on the capacity to manipulate the memory traces of a community and control information gathering and

dissemination which generate and reproduce the discursive and institutional continuities which

”bind” societies.⁴⁴

Jabri further exemplifies how manipulation of memory traces, like images of past glories, episodic ceremonials, symbolic representations, focus on origin or present achievements – can be used to construct exclusive national identities.⁴⁵ According to Jabri the reproduction of conflict is possible when “… the language of politics becomes a discourse of exclusionist protection against a constructed diabolical, hated enemy who deserves any violence perpetrated against it.”⁴⁶ How does the inclusion-exclusion dichotomy result in the emergence

37 Jabri, 1996:130.

38 Jabri: 1996:3.

39 Jabri: 1996:3.

40 Jabri: 1996:50.

41 Jabri: 1996:7.

42 Ibid.

43 See the presentation of the studies of Bar-Tal and Teichman: 2005, and Kelman: 2004 in 1.1.2.

44 Jabri, 1996:131.

45 Jabri, 1996:132.

46 Jabri, 1996:127.

3 A Critical Approach 81 of and support for violent human conflict? To answer this Jabri argues for the influence of the system on the actors or individuals:

Individuals are born into discursive and institutional continuities which define and bind particular societies. Individuals are involved in the reproduction or transformation of social systems which are in existence through the continuity of praxis.⁴⁷

On the other hand, Jabri`s use of the structurationist theory of Gidden’s allows her theory to value the possibilities of the situated actors to change the society. But in order to be change makers Jabri argues that the individuals need to understand the processes and institutional continuities which reproduce the conflict⁴⁸.

According to Jabri, her conception of discourse on peace is the emancipator component of her study. It presumes recognition of the transformative capacity of agents in societies to promote social change, although always within the complex combination of structural enablement and constraint⁴⁹.

A crucial point for agents who seek to promote change, either through conflict resolution strategies or peace activism, is to gain an understanding of the structured legitimation of violence in a given society and the institutional orders which legitimate violence. According to Jabri, in order to develop a `discourse on peace` one must incorporate an understanding of what reproduces the conflict within the given society:

A discourse on peace assumes a basis for the transformation of symbolic and institutional orders which underpins violent human conflict. A discourse on peace is necessarily a counter- discourse which seeks to understand the structurated legitimation of violence and challenge the militarist order and exclusionist identities which encompass it.⁵⁰

Thus, Jabri argues that a genius understanding of the structures within a society and the discourses within the public sphere which legitimate violence must be clearly understood by those who try to produce a `counter-discourse`. Jabri emphasizes the need to implement Galtung`s definitional distinction between direct and structural violence. Galtung suggested that a positive conception of peace should point to the elimination of structures of exploitation and dependency which, he argues, are as destructive of human life and well-being as the direct violence experienced in times of war.⁵¹ Thus Jabri argues that the concept of peace

47 Jabri, 1996:135.

48 Jabri: 1996:140-41.

49 Jabri: 1996:145.

50 Jabri: 1996:146.

51 Jabri: 1996:150.

must incorporate a rejection of violence and its institutional underpinnings in combination with a defined process which would enable its realization.”⁵²

Several researchers within conflict resolution have been inspired by Habermas⁵³ and his communicative interaction model as a process towards mutual understanding of the causes of conflict and the obstacles to resolution. The conception of dialogic relations emerging through discourse is based on the idea of an egalitarian dialogue where the rational arguments of the participants should be based on validity claims and not on power claims. In such an ideal setting the parties in conflict would use rational arguments and together discover what Habermas calls emancipator interest⁵⁴.

To Jabri, the Habermasian model of discursive ethics “provides a process of which peace is by necessity constitutive”, or “provides a framework to which war as an institution may be put to question”⁵⁵. But this process must also be evaluated though a critical approach. Jabri suggests the following:

The ideal speech situation assumes equal participation and the right to question the validity claims of normative and factual statements in a dialogic process which aims at reaching free rational consensus about such claims. Furthermore, participants must be symmetrically situated with respect to social norms and material conditions if unhindered communication is to take place. Discourse is the process through which normative statements are treated as hypotheses in need of justification and defense. Consensus is possible, but it is not imposed⁵⁶.

In this, Jabri suggests, that peace movements (or conflict resolution theories) must be evaluated according to how the parties in conflict have equal rights to question the validity of the other`s arguments, and further be based on a relationship where the participants are symmetrically situated without any asymmetrical power relation between the two. Normative statements should then be equally treated as hypotheses to be either justified or defended within the communicative act.

The main issues of the Habermasian communicative model was that it should ideally become a communicative interaction process where mutual understanding of the causes of conflict and the obstacles to resolution should develop.

But Jabri also argues that a critical analysis must consider the possibilities for the discourses on peace to enter the public space. Such a question is related to the actual

52 Jabri: 1996:146.

53 See for example Jabri: 1996 and Ramsbotham, Miall and Woodhouse: 2005.

54 Jabri: 1996: 161. See also Cronin, C.P. & Pablo, D.G.: The inclusion of the other: studies in political theory/Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge: Polity Press: 1998: 49-73.

55 Jabri: 1996:166.

56 Jabri: 1996:164.

3 A Critical Approach 83 hegemony of the discourses within the public space, and the possibilities of the peacemakers to be heard and thus create an actual counter-discourse:

The transformative capacity of counter-discourse must also be located in the public space. It is the domination of space which generates hegemonic discourses based on exclusionist ideologies which are used to legitimate the onset of war and the manipulation of information in time of war. Structures of domination point to the existence of asymmetrical access to public space such that the counter-discourses generated by social movements opposed to war are marginalized or rendered invisible.⁵⁷

According to Habermas, the public space or “public sphere” is a place where a public opinion can be constructed.⁵⁸ Thus, Jabri argues that to situate peace in the discourses within the public space requires a:

… process of unhindered communicative action which involves participation and difference.

Situating peace in the unhindered process of intersubjective communication recognizes two indisputable assumptions: (a) that only human enact war and (b) that only human enacts what we call linguistic communication. This process is, by definition, between ”self” and ”other”, a structure which is both the basis of conflict and dialogue. Communication implies a process of common discovery, the emergence of a ”we”, through a process of unrestricted questioning and dialogue.⁵⁹

Thus the peacebuilders need to be heard clearly in the public sphere.

To summarize the above presentation of Jabri`s critical approach it should be pointed out firstly, that the dialogue needs to be process-oriented, as the participants are situated actors born into a way of viewing the world and yet with the ability to change, Secondly, a dialogue needs to be egalitarian or symmetric in order to bring forth an equal understanding of how to transform the conflict into a sustainable peace. Thirdly, the peacemakers need to challenge exclusive dominant discourses and institutions which legitimate and reproduce the conflict and bring their voice into the public sphere.