Relational Transformation and Agonistic Dialogue in Divided Societies

Abstract

In societies emerging from conflict and violence, achieving a peaceful political settlement is an important goal. In most situations, however, achieving this goal is not enough to transform underlying conflicts rooted in history and identity. Rather, it is understood that what is needed in such situations is ongoing effort towards the transformation of underlying historical and relational conflict. But while high profile events such as truth commissions often become the public focus of a reconciliation process, in fact much of the effort towards conflict transformation takes place in lower profile dialogue processes. This article theorises a model of agonistic dialogue required for relational conflict transformation in divided and post-violent conflict societies. Described here as 'sustained, intensive relational work', this model draws from theories of agonistic democracy to argue for dialogue processes that are focused on engaging across deep differences in ways that can facilitate an enlarged understanding among former enemies.

Working through the violent past: Practices of restorative justice through memory and dialogue in Italy

“…An anonymous voice thus openly refers to ‘the social construction of hatred’ (Bertagna et al, 2015, p. 92), which occurs in the process of defining identity: ‘[hatred has a relationship with] the attachment to or the construction of identity’ (Bertagna et al, 2015, p. 90). This confirms Maddison’s (2015) view that hatred enhances ‘the potential for violence that exists in every construction of collective identities’ (p. 1021). Former terrorists also relate feelings of hatred to the historical context, helping the reader understand the reasons behind their turn to violence, as well as the factors and circumstances surrounding it.…”

“…This kind of dialogue has been explicitly, even if somewhat controversially, advocated for post-conflict societies. Maddison (2015) argued that reconciliation should aim to ‘transform the conflict rather than to resolve it’ (p. 1019). This is not to say that participants in dialogue cannot reach consensus, yet ‘where a consensus might emerge it is most likely to be treated as partial, fragile, contingent and temporary’ (Maddison, 2015, p. 1023).…”

“…Maddison (2015) argued that reconciliation should aim to ‘transform the conflict rather than to resolve it’ (p. 1019). This is not to say that participants in dialogue cannot reach consensus, yet ‘where a consensus might emerge it is most likely to be treated as partial, fragile, contingent and temporary’ (Maddison, 2015, p. 1023). As suggested by Maddison (2015, p. 1016), agonistic dialogue must be intensive, relational, sustained over time and mediated by skilled practitioners, to allow participants to understand each other’s experiences and perspectives.…”

“…This is not to say that participants in dialogue cannot reach consensus, yet ‘where a consensus might emerge it is most likely to be treated as partial, fragile, contingent and temporary’ (Maddison, 2015, p. 1023). As suggested by Maddison (2015, p. 1016), agonistic dialogue must be intensive, relational, sustained over time and mediated by skilled practitioners, to allow participants to understand each other’s experiences and perspectives. Most importantly, this kind of dialogue should openly address the violent conflict of the past, while also acknowledging that ‘conflict remains central to a peaceful but democratically engaged polity’ (Maddison, 2015, p.1027).…”

Postnational memory: Narrating the Holocaust and the Nakba

“…I cannot see any way at all (a) of not imagining the Jews of Israel as in decisive measure really the permanent result of the Holocaust, and (b) not also requiring from them acknowledgment of what they did to the Palestinians during and after 1948. (Said 2007) In the literature, the attempt to think productively rather than competitively about competing narratives is given different names: 'the negotiation of national identity' (Kelman 1997), 'communicative memory' (Torpey 2001), 'historical dialogue' (Barkan 2001), 'multidirectional memory' (Rothberg 2009), 'bridging narratives' (Pappe and Hilal 2010), 'agonistic dialogue' (Maddison 2015) and 'deliberations on memory' (Bashir and Goldberg 2014). These notions are couched in different philosophical backgrounds, but they all refer to dialogical attempts to deal with past injustices in context of political reconciliation (Bashir 2012;Khoury 2017Khoury , 2018bMaddison 2015).…”