Rituals of reconciliation: Arab-Islamic perspectives.

• Author: Irani, George E.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past ten years, many Middle Eastern scholars and practitioners trained in the United States have returned to their countries of origin ready to impart what they have learned about Western conflict resolution techniques. Because the teaching and practice of conflict resolution is a novel phenomenon in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and other countries of the Middle East, their testimony has often been greeted with distrust. Many view conflict resolution as a false Western panacea - as yet another program imposed from outside and therefore insensitive to indigenous problems, needs, and political processes. Indeed, some people in the Middle East view conflict resolution as a scheme concocted by the United States meant primarily to facilitate and hasten the processes of peace and "normalization" between Israel and its Arab neighbors.(1)

In assessing the applicability of Western-based conflict resolution models in non-Western contexts such as the Arab-Islamic culture area, theoreticians and practitioners alike have begun to recognize the importance of indigenous ways of thinking and feeling, as well as local rituals for managing, reducing, and resolving conflicts. Moved by a newfound awareness of culture and cultural differences, they have begun to recognize that giving weight to unique patterns of perception and practice will help them to identify preexisting resources for dealing with conflict as well as culturally competent prescriptions for peacemaking in the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian impasse and other regional conflicts.

It is not controversial to point out that, thus far, the Middle East peace process has been a rather superficial phenomenon. Diplomatic agreements have not "trickled down" to the grassroots, where peacemaking has commonly been linked to capitulation or "pacification."(2) Peace treaties dependent upon economic and political enticements, coercion, expediency, and purely strategic considerations cannot last if they are not accompanied by a sincere and profound exploration of the underlying emotional legacies of fear, hatred, sorrow, and mistrust resulting from decades of warfare and recurrent cycles of victimization and vengeance.

Policymakers in the United States and in Europe must understand that the Camp David Accords (1978) and the Oslo Treaty (1991) between Palestinians and Israelis are only the diplomatic surface of peace. Since the signing of the Camp David Accords, numerous books and studies have assessed the diplomatic process between Israel and Egypt, drawing pertinent lessons for policymakers and potential peacemakers.(3) The major drawback in this peace process, however, is that it has not trickled down to Egyptian and Israeli grassroots constituencies. Interactions between Egyptian and Israeli citizens have been sparse and controversial. While large numbers of Israelis have traveled to Egypt as tourists, very few Egyptians have ventured into Israel.(4) The situation is no better following the 1994 peace treaty between the Kingdom of Jordan and the Jewish state. So far, very few Jordanians have visited Israel.

While scholarly and especially popular literature on the Middle East provides detailed documentation of the Israeli existential condition and its links to various policies pursued by the Israeli government, there remains a profound need to fathom the deep cultural, social, and religious roots that underlie the way Arabs behave when it comes to conflict reduction and reconciliation. Just as Israeli reticence to concede occupied territory has been related to a combination of security fears, Zionist ambitions, efforts to control natural resources, and persisting psychological traumas from the Holocaust, the reluctance of many Arabs to embrace American peace proposals must also be related to historically rooted hopes, fears, frustrations, grievances, and needs for empowerment and dignity.

In efforts to bring peace to the Middle East, Western policymakers might benefit from fostering and encouraging a dialogue that takes into consideration indigenous rituals and processes of reconciliation. Peace can be neither achieved nor sustained until the process leading to it becomes both deep and broad. On the one hand, opposing parties must explore the psychological roots of their conflict. On the other hand, broader cross-sections of societies must be empowered to participate through forms of interaction that are both culturally legitimate and symbolically powerful.

The purpose of this study is to explore the limitations of Western conflict resolution approaches when presented in non-Western contexts, highlight the continuing vitality of Arab-Islamic rituals of reconciliation, and identify ways that the United States and other would-be mediators might benefit from a serious appraisal of such rituals. To counteract Arab-Islamic experiences of disempowerment and temper the power-political undertones of the peace process, mediators might consciously integrate some of the principles and symbolic practices inherent in indigenous Middle Eastern reconciliation methodologies. Rituals such as sulh (settlement) and musalaha (reconciliation) exemplify key Arab-Islamic cultural values, and should be looked at - both figuratively and to some extent literally - for insight into how to approach conflict resolution in the Middle East.

CONFLICT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: ASSESSING THE APPLICABILITY OF WESTERN APPROACHES

Western Assumptions and Techniques: Although conflict is a human universal, the nature of conflicts and the methods of resolving conflict differ from one socio-cultural context to another. For instance, in contemporary North American and Northern European contexts, conflict is commonly perceived to inhere between two or more individuals acting as individuals - i.e., as free agents pursuing their own interests in various domains of life. Conflict is accepted as a natural concomitant of self-interest and competition which, when subject to an optimal amount of regulation by carefully designed institutions, keeps societies dynamic, energetic, and strong. While prevailing views of conflict between groups promulgated by such disciplines as international relations are less sanguine, the Western view of conflict as natural and, in principle, "solvable" has led many proponents of conflict resolution to identify random as well as organized violence as symptoms of a need for social and structural change. While conflict can lead to separation, hostility, civil strife, terrorism and war, it can also stimulate dialogue, leading to fairer and more socially just solutions. Conflict can lead to stronger relationships and peace.

The basic assumption made by Western conflict resolution theorists is that conflict can and should be fully resolved. This philosophy, whereby virtually every conflict can be managed or resolved, clashes with other cultural approaches to conflict. Many cultures, and not only Arab-Islamic culture, take the less optimistic view that many conflicts may be intractable.(5) They can evolve through phases of escalation and confrontation as well as phases of calm and a rerum to the status quo ante. Far from implying mere passivity in the face of conflict, such views are often associated with efforts to deal with incipient conflict quietly and indirectly, to mobilize social networks to control and reduce violence, and even to strive for comprehensive reconciliation when circumstances appear propitious.

According to US-based scholars of conflict resolution, conflict erupts either because of different interpretations regarding data, issues, values, interests and relationships(6) or because of unsatisfied human needs.(7) These scholars view conflict as having a positive as well as a negative dimension. It acts as a catharsis for social tensions, helps redefine relationships between individuals, groups, and nations, and makes it easier to find adequate settlements or possible resolutions. During the last ten years, however, more and more voices within the field of conflict resolution have been calling attention to the centrality of deep psychological dynamics that sustain and reproduce conflict. In response, they have affirmed the importance of acknowledgment and forgiveness in achieving lasting reconciliation among conflicting parties. According to this argument, many of the world's most intractable conflicts involve age-old cycles of oppression, victimization and revenge. These conflicts, which can have dangerous and long-lasting political repercussions, are rooted in a psychological dynamic of victimization.(8) Racism and "ethnic cleansing" are only the most dramatic manifestations of such cycles of victimization and vengeance.

From a psychoanalytic standpoint, conflict management and resolution efforts must help individuals or groups embroiled in conflict to acknowledge one another's psychological concerns and needs so that they will be able to overcome their historic sense of victimization. Advocates of this position argue that acts of individual as well as inter-group violence arise from unhealed wounds and deep feelings of persecution. The non-fulfillment of needs for identity, security, development, and meaning, exacerbated by acute feelings of victimization, inevitably leads to conflict and may eventually lead to war. A first step in the process of healing, then, is the mutual acknowledgment by all parties of their emotions, memories, viewpoints and needs. Thus, the first and most crucial skill which conflicting parties must develop is that of actively listening to each other.

In the field of conflict resolution, communication skills are fundamental. In many if not most conflicts, the art of listening is drowned out by arguments and the never-ending straggle to get one's own point across first. The opposite of listening is not ignoring; rather, it is preparing to respond. Active listening is a method that ensures that the whole meaning of what was said is...