How Palestinian students invoke the category “human” to challenge negative treatment and media representations

Abstract

Dehumanisation of opponents in conflict has been shown to be a common and damaging feature in the media. What is not understood is how this dehumanisation is challenged, which is the novel contribution that this research will make. Drawing on focus groups (four focus groups each with four to six participants) conducted in the West Bank in 2015 that discussed media coverage of international conflict, this article demonstrates the ways in which young Palestinian participants attempt to rehumanize themselves in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Discursive analysis demonstrates how this was achieved in a number of ways: categorising Palestinians as “human being”; by directly and explicitly challenging the suggestion that Palestinians are less than human; by drawing the enemy into the category “human”; and by embodying the “human.” These findings, the first to address the talk of young Palestinians about the reporting of violent conflicts around the world, demonstrate the importance of categorization and how, in this case, the specifics of the use of the (human) category work to rehumanize Palestinians in the face of (claims of) dehumanisation.

Meta‐humanization enhances positive reactions to prosocial cross‐group interaction

“…This is consistent with previous research showing that being recognized in terms of human values predicted better outcomes for intergroup relations, including trust and forgiveness, which appeared beyond the effect of feeling liked by the outgroup (Livingstone et al, 2019). These patterns of findings are also consistent with qualitative research suggesting that being part of the human category is very important, because it can encourage people to see that there are still genuine people among members of outgroups (Heywood & Goodman, 2019).…”

“…Research at an interpersonal level has shown that people dehumanize those who they perceive to dehumanize them (e.g., Bastian & Haslam, 2010. At the intergroup level, when people perceive that outgroup members dehumanize their own ingroup (i.e., metadehumanization), they become motivated to humanize the ingroup (Heywood & Goodman, 2019) and to reciprocally dehumanize and show hostility towards the offending outgroup (Kteily, Hodson, & Bruneau, 2016). Moreover, the effects of metadehumanization have been shown to be distinct from the effects of perceiving that outgroup members dislike one's ingroup (i.e., meta-prejudice: Kteily et al, 2016).…”

Overcoming negative reactions to prosocial intergroup behaviors in post-conflict societies: The power of intergroup apology

“…In contexts marked by intergroup intractability, the perception of outgroup members' humanity is one of the important facets of achieving reconciliation (Andrighetto, Mari, Volpato, & Behluli, 2012;Bar-Tal, 2000). Members of victim groups need to not only rehumanize their ingroup but also believe that decent people with genuine intentions are among their current and/or former adversaries (Heywood & Goodman, 2019). Enabling them to consider former opponents as fully human may be necessary for their positive understanding of that outgroup's prosocial and emotional actions and/or intentions.…”

De/humanizacja w procesach dezintegracji i reintegracji: przykład „dzikich” wojen

“…Niekiedy zmniejszanie wrogości polega na przyjęciu innego sposobu myślenia o grupach (np. konflikt w Rwandzie jako spór Rwandyjczyków z Rwandyjczykami, a nie Hutu z Tutsi 82 ), podkreślaniu wspólnego losu 83 czy człowieczeństwa wszystkich stron 84 . W Rwandzie obok narzędzi "oficjalnych", w tym trybunałów powołanych do osądzenia zbrodniarzy, wykorzystywano także tradycyjne zgromadzenia, wiece (Gacaca) i to one mogły decydować o sprawach "mniejszego kalibru", na przykład o przemocy, które nie uznano za przejaw ludobójstwa lub przestępstw przeciwko mieniu.…”