Riverhouse ePress - Socio-Psychological Dynamics in Group Conflict

When people feel endangered, they think more categorically. They see issues in black/white terms; they see people in “we/they” terms. Ability to see gray areas or middle ground is reduced. The greater the stress and fear, the greater the reduction in capacity for “gray” thinking.

Stereotyping increases; ability to recognize differences in opposing communities is reduced.

Under stress, people lose their ability to recognize differences in others. The character of all is judged by the behavior of the worst extremists in the opposing community. “They are all racists; every one of them.”

Deterrence becomes less effective in its impact

As stress and fear increase, emotions have greater impact on group thinking and rational thought has less. As a consequence, deterrence (i.e.: threats of punishment or retaliation, physical destruction or war) has a reduced impact on groups in these circumstances. Deterrence assumes that logic and rationality are the primary basis of decisionmaking. That is, military and political leaders who advocate superior weapons as a means to deter their enemies assume that their opponents will logically assess the damage they would suffer in combat and wisely choose to avoid war. However, history bears out that as stress and a sense of threatened identity increase, decisions are made on an emotional basis rather than a logical basis.

Preservation of the group’s identity becomes a major motivation

Self-preservation is a major motivation in most conflicts. However many people in a group feel gravely threatened or highly stressed, the “self” which becomes the object of concern is the group’s identity rather than the lives of individuals or their property. Thinking shifts away from day-to-day survival towards preserving the group and its values. Preserving the group’s symbolic identity becomes a major pre-occupation that often over-rides all else. Individuals are prepared to die “for the sake of our great people.” Actions by enemies that “insult our honor” are viewed as demanding an answer, regardless of the cost to lives and property. Symbols of the group take on almost sacred meaning, and anything that symbolizes a threat to the group’s identity arouses powerful emotions of fear and hostility, regardless of the actual threat (e.g.: the reaction of patriots to protesters who burn the flag or destroy other symbols of national identity.).

Acceptance of sameness decreases and efforts to establish non-sameness become a major concern

Groups who become enemies to each other have a strong need to demonstrate that they are not alike. Neighbors sharing many similarities who become enemies often are preoccupied with establishing their differences, such as in language, food, music, dance, and folklore, even though these differences may not have been viewed as significant previously.

Where differences between neighboring enemies are small, symbols of even minor differences acquire vast significance. In Cyprus, the only visible difference between Turk and Greek peasants was that the former wore a red sash around the waist and the latter a blue one. As a consequence, in periods of tension, people on both sides would rather have died than change the color of their sash.

The loss of physical borders comes to be viewed as worse than death itself

Under stress, physical borders take on a powerful psychological role. They become symbols of the group’s social border, its identity. Thus any breach of the group’s physical borders is viewed as a breach of the group’s identity. Additionally, individuals tend to merge their own personal psychic boundaries with the group, and as a result, they experience any threat to group survival as a threat to their own personal survival.

Loss of identity is the deepest possible tragedy a cohesive group can experience, for it means destruction not only of the individuals in it, but of everything they value: family, friends, connection to the past and future. Thus the threat of loss of group identity places its members under anxiety that seems unbearable. This anxiety may seem worse than death itself, for death is external and future, whereas anxiety about loss of identity is internal and immediate. As a consequence, members of an identity group may prefer to accept death or to kill a threatening neighbor rather than endure anxiety over losing their borders.

Similarly, groups who have been physically displaced by enemy groups and fear the loss of their own identity as a consequence may become so anxious that death may seem preferable to the anxiety experienced in the face of loss of identity.

As a consequence of their psychological role, borders are often the location of elaborate rituals of searching and interrogation in order to protect “us” from “them”, rituals whose thoroughness often far exceeds what the practical realities of security would require.

“Epic traumas” and “chosen glories” play a key role in maintaining group identity

Groups engaged in protracted warfare often come to express a significant part of their identity in terms of one or several “epic traumas”. An epic trauma is an event which caused a group to feel deeply victimized by another group, and thus provides a common humiliating injury shared within a group. Over time, this event takes on the status and power of a myth (not in the sense of an untruth but rather in the sense of a foundational experience that over time acquires an almost sacred character) that is passed along from generation to generation, and becomes a central part of its identity. When an event becomes an epic trauma, the historical truth about it is no longer significant. The role of the event in the group’s identity is what matters. Usually an epic trauma becomes intertwined in memory with similar traumas and thus becomes a central theme in the group’s self-understanding. Often it remains as fresh in the memory of succeeding generations as though it happened yesterday.

“Chosen glories” are successes or triumphs that are mythologized to become a central, positive part of a group’s identity. To the extent that a group struggles with negative images of itself, it is likely to ritualize and re-play its chosen glories as a way of coping with bad feelings about itself within the group. Tragically, of course, one group’s “epic trauma” is often another group’s “chosen glory”….

Inability to mourn is a key requirement in the formation of an epic trauma

Mourning is an essential human response to painful change or loss. Mourning is a process that requires time to unfold through stages of initial denial, then sadness or anger, then a psychic “bargaining” process in hopes of restoring lost persons or things, and eventually culminating in acceptance of and adaptation to the reality of loss. Like individuals, groups need to go through stages of mourning, assisted by group ceremonies, rituals, the formation of new stories, myths, and visions, etc., to recover from loss.

For an event to become an epic trauma, it must be one in which the group was prevented from mourning effectively. Any event, which makes a group, too humiliated, angry, or fearful to mourn, too physically or socially devastated to mourn; or on the other hand, too guilty to mourn, is a likely candidate to become an epic trauma.

The inability to mourn often leads to apparently irrational behavior, such as an unwillingness to settle a conflict or to accept any compromises such as yielding territory to an enemy group as part of terms of peace.

Groups that perceive themselves to have been defeated or humiliated are particularly likely to demonize enemies and idealize their leader

When a group has been deeply hurt and humiliated, its members often feel some level of ambivalence towards their leader who did not protect them. However, the group also has a powerful need to feel that it has a protector. To question the leader would weaken their faith that he is such a protector and threaten the group’s sense of safety even further. The psychological dynamic with which groups deal with this dilemma is to project the negative part of their ambivalence onto outsiders, i.e.: onto an enemy group or its leader, which enables the group to avoid facing the negative side of its feelings towards its own leader. The result is that members may become even more blindly loyal to their leader as a consequence of humiliation by others.

To the extent that people demonize their enemies and rigidly refuse to admit their own mistakes or excesses, it suggests the possibility of discomfort with some dimension of their own identity or actions

Blame may reflect a need to cope with feelings about self (or one’s own group) that are uncomfortable or painful. If individuals or groups feel completely comfortable with their own actions, they can acknowledge mistakes or excesses without defensiveness. However if people are ambivalent about certain dimensions of their own actions (e.g.: if they are guilty of human rights abuses against their enemies or their own internal dissenters), blaming and demonizing the enemy provides an easy way to cope with this discomfort, for these responses make it possible to locate elsewhere, in the enemy, the traits that are feared to exist in the self. This is called “projection”, because people project onto others uncomfortable truths about themselves. Projection is particularly likely to take place if debate about the appropriateness of actions is not acceptable as a topic of public conversation. Of course, often one side is more at fault than another, and blaming an enemy does not always reflects a guilty heart. One possible sign of projection is rigidity and emotional reactivity; an angry, persistent refusal to even consider the possibility of failures or excesses within one’s own group.
---------------------------------------------------

Some Implications for Negotiations and Peacebuilding

Conflicts in which chosen glories and epic traumas are present invariably have a long history. It is unrealistic and perhaps counterproductive to expect that genuine peace can be created in such situations with a few months of table talks. Peacebuilding should be conceptualized as a long-term effort that involves much more than political settlements, thus providing time and scope to deal with the inescapable psychosocial realities.
Epic trauma begins as current trauma in which the natural healing processes of grieving, raging, and repeated story telling in private relationships and public rituals of loss in an atmosphere of safety and respect are not able to operate. Trauma healing activities are a fundamental contribution to preventing the elevation of current trauma to new epic traumas, and thus to the long-term political flexibility of the parties involved.
Chosen glories and epic traumas often play a key role in the worldview of parties at the negotiating table. It is important for each party to have its epic trauma heard by empathetic ears. By listening carefully to epic traumas facilitators can contribute to the possibility of progress in negotiation. Listening reduces the need of each party to complain endlessly about their epic traumas and increases the possibility that each side may be able to demonstrate empathy for the other side’s traumas. It also assists a party to move towards that moment when it can face the painful truth about its own destructive actions.
Commonly groups have elaborate public rituals for recalling their chosen glories or epic traumas. Often these rituals are highly offensive to opposing groups. As a short-term measure, it is sometimes useful to negotiate how to engage in these rituals in ways that reduce their inflammatory nature. However, it is important to acknowledge the underlying force, which drives groups to engage in such rituals: the need to maintain a clear identity and to feel secure as a group. On the long-term, the only way to reduce a group’s inclination to engage in inflammatory expressions of identity is through a strengthened sense of identity and an increased sense of safety and respect from other groups.
The presence of chosen glories and epic traumas indicate that symbolic awareness is a powerful dimension in the conflict. Peacebuilders should actively look for ways to draw on symbolic dynamics on behalf of peace. E.g.: in Nicaragua, ex-combatants from both Contra and Sandinista armies are currently working in joint pairs to do community healing and development work. Such people, who are symbols of strong, credible voices for each side, are often the most effective peacebuilders if they will reach across the divide (e.g.: Mandela).
Opposing identity groups who believe that their identity and safety are under threat often feel they must maintain their rituals of non-sameness at all costs. Third parties can contribute to the possibility of settlement by encouraging each side to find positive ways of expressing its identity, thus reducing the drive to differentiate in destructive ways.
Progress in negotiation often leads to unexpected breakdowns on minor issues. An explanation may be that progress on important issues creates a fear of sameness among representatives of identity groups. Representatives react to this fear by seeking ways to preserve a sense of differentiation from their opponents. The antidote is fostering a healthy sense of differences. If the third party is conscious of this need and looks for opportunities to foster a respectful sense of differences in the opposing groups’ identities, there may be a greater chance for agreement.
Groups involved in intense identity conflict often demonstrate an “accordion phenomenon” at the bargaining table, in which they swing back and forth between phases of closeness and expressions of enmity. Negotiators and publics are often deeply demoralized by the inevitable downturns and need encouragement not to give up hope.
Opening new channels of mourning can be an important contribution to peace.
Religious resources (of grieving, healing, and fostering identity that is not based on destroying others) are especially important and useful.
Groups can be encouraged to recognize that it is in their own interest to make it possible for their opponents to mourn epic traumas. This is due to the fact that inability to mourn contributes to the strengthening of irrational, rigid, and malevolent political and social ideologies within a group. Demagogues and extremists routinely build their power bases by recalling epic trauma and appealing to chosen glories among their own people. Acknowledging an opposing group’s epic traumas and expressing empathy for them can, if the timing is right, be an important step in enabling that group to mourn. However, such steps should be taken in consultation with thoughtful persons from the opposing group well connected to the strongest sentiments of that group who can comment on the most effective way to offer such acknowledgment.
In general, valuing and seeking to support identity differences is likely to reduce the destructive dynamics between identity groups at the negotiating table. Respect for the legitimate aspirations of identity releases parties to explore commonalities on practical issues of co-existence.

By Ron Kraybill. Copyright by author, 2001. The wording is mine, but few of the ideas are original. I drew in particular from Vamik Volkan, “Ethnonationalistic Rituals: An Introduction” in Mind and Human Interaction, December, 1993/ January, 1994, 3-19. See also The Psychodynamics of International Relationships, Vols. I and II, by Volkan, Julius, and Montville (Lexington Books, 1991-2)

Capacity for “gray” thinking is reduced