Moving beyond the past: The role of historical closure in conflict resolution

Abstract

This article discusses the role of historical closure in conflict resolution and reconciliation, departing from the example of the Polish Round Table negotiations in 1989. The concept of a “thick line” (“Gruba kreska” or “Schlussstrich”) was used in several historical contexts, showing the intention to detach from history when resolving pressing current societal issues. Historical evidence suggests that it was an intentionally chosen strategy by both sides taking part in the Round Table negotiations in 1989. Historical closure is known to have good consequences for building mutual trust, improving attitudes and making contact interventions more effective in improving intergroup relations. This is mostly attributed to the fact that historical crimes can have a long-standing impact on intergroup relations: past victimhood and perpetratorship lead to current grievances, denial, and mistrust. Only when these historical roles are overcome can both parties achieve any agreement. At the same time, historical closure breeds a sense of injustice among political followers and gives birth to numerous conspiracy theories. This article analyzes these problems in the Polish context and beyond.

Putting the past into action: How historical narratives shape participation in collective action

“…This, in turn, may mitigate emotional reactions to injustice that can spur collective action (Solak et al., 2017). For instance, historical discontinuities should increase perceptions of historical closure (Bilewicz, 2019) and reduce perceptions of privity (e.g., Starzyk & Ross, 2008), which should reduce attributions of blame for present day inequality, leading to less anger at injustice, and less collective guilt among advantaged groups specifically. Therefore, we hypothesize that historical discontinuities deny historical attributions for present injustices, thereby reducing readiness for collective action (Hypothesis 6).…”

“…Historical narratives can foster or impede forms of consciousness that lead to seeking social change (Bar‐Tal, 2003; Pennebaker et al., 2003) and influence processes that facilitate (e.g., moral responsibility for present inequities, Imhoff et al., 2012; perceived injustice, Sibley et al., 2008) or inhibit (e.g., system justification, Jost et al., 2017) collective action. The status quo justifying function of historical narratives has been illustrated in research on historical closure (e.g., Bilewicz, 2019) and historical denial (e.g., Kurtiş et al., 2010; Sibley et al., 2005). However, historical narratives can also impact social movements’ ability to recruit and retain participants (Farthing & Kohl, 2013; Voss, 1996), and movement leaders may seize on existing narratives or construct new narratives in service of their cause (Armstrong & Crage, 2006; Polletta, 1998).…”

Three Fish at One Hook? Future-Oriented, Reconciliatory, and Defensive Claims for Historical Closure as Expressions of the Same Defensive Desire

“…In this way, jointly agreeing on HC can institutionalize the end of a hostile period. Indeed, during the Polish Round Table negotiations in 1989, the joint decision to sever past historical conflicts with a gruba kreska (“thick line”) allowed the Polish United Workers’ Party and the trade union Solidarność to detach from their previous historical roles and cooperatively address current problems (Bilewicz, 2019). We refer to the demand for HC based on the desire to reconcile with the victim group as reconciliatory HC .…”