Negotiating the past, imagining the future: Israeli and Palestinian narratives in intergroup dialog

Abstract

a b s t r a c tIntergroup dialog affords an opportunity to study the deployment of historical narratives in conversation. In this field study, Israeli and Palestinian adolescents were randomly assigned to one of two conditions of intergroup dialog commonly in practice in intergroup encounter programs. In the coexistence condition, facilitators encouraged participants to focus on similarities and to construct a common ingroup identity. In the confrontational condition, facilitators encouraged participants to see themselves as group representatives and to become aware of power differences among groups. Our analysis examined variability in narrative content based on dialog condition and topical focus on either history or the imagined future. Using an interpretive analytical framework, we found that recognition of the outgroup narrative emerged among Jewish Israeli participants within the coexistence condition when the topic of an imagined future was discussed. Participants nevertheless struggled to reconcile divergent collective narratives in conversations about the past and a concrete future-namely, the conditions of a future peace agreement-regardless of the facilitation model employed. Findings are discussed in relation to theories of historical narrative in intergroup conflict and reconciliation, as well as distinct approaches to intergroup dialog.

The Role of Perceived In-group Moral Superiority in Reparative Intentions and Approach Motivation

“…Moreover, these events may appear small compared to that construction of national history to which participants have been exposed since primary school. Pilecki and Hammack (2014) point out that the effect of events depicting the in-group’s aggression may be insignificant because by the time participants face such events, they have already been presented countless times with accounts suggesting the opposite view (i.e., that the in-group is the victim while the out-group involved in the event is the aggressor). Thus, the presented wrongdoing does not elicit reactions which would be constructive regarding intergroup relations.…”

“…National history serves as an interpretive framework for both past and contemporary events and experiences (László, 2013; Pilecki and Hammack, 2014). This is a scarcely studied aspect of the perpetrator-victim intergroup dynamics.…”

Collectively coping with contact: The role of intragroup support in dealing with the challenges of intergroup mixing in residential contexts

“…Encounters are inevitably shaped by the group's collective history of conflict, while being constrained by their shared beliefs and norms (Bekerman, ; Maoz, , , ). When communication does occur, traditional group narratives are typically reproduced, often hardening rather than softening group positions (Bekerman, ; Pilecki & Hammack, ). In effect, while the encounters are riven with intragroup processes, these tend to perpetuate opposition.…”

Examining the Round Table Talks from the perspective of the Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation: Observations and insights

“…Interestingly, this gap is also evident in the historical accounts provided by Reykowski, who represented the communist party at the Talks, as compared to Grzelak (2020, this issue), who represented the opposition and argues that "the political and social image of Poland painted by Janusz Reykowski in the introductory paper […] does not adequately reflect the dark sides of the regime, " (p. 3) which was "a dictatorship where human rights and freedoms were violated everyday" (p. 2). Such divergent narratives of the same events are typical of the relations and discourse between historical perpetrator vs. victim groups, or stronger vs. weaker parties (e.g., Bilewicz & Jaworska, 2013;Pilecki & Hammack, 2014).…”