Resolution of the Middle East Conflict: Can the Conflict be Resolved - Admission/Application Essay Example

 Resolution of the Middle East Conflict: Can the Conflict be Resolved? Since the Second World War theorists have explained the Middle East (Arab-Israeli) conflict in terms of border tensions, colonial issues, ethnic and religious clashes. Some have characterized the conflict as a casualty of the world powers’ cold war conflict or a casualty of the Second World War. The longevity of the conflict however, have drawn attention from theorists who attempt to look outside of global and regional politics for a more profound explanation of the Middle East conflict and have described it in terms of intergroup relations. In this regard, resolving the Middle East conflict can only be understood in terms of “transforming intergroup relations” by building “mediative capacity” (Lederach 2005, 95). Giving the long term nature of the conflict in the Middle East, the intergroup theory of behavior provides a feasible method by which to understand the conflict in the Middle East and thus to resolving it. Lederach’s (2005) mediative capacity takes the position that social spaces must be understood and identified for effecting change on an intermediary basis rather than through the services of a political mediator. The role of the political mediator is too narrow and is only negotiated among leaders of the group. Mediative capacity engages: Attitudes, skills, and disciplines that include engagement of the diverse perspectives about a conflict and a capacity to watch for and build opportunities that increase creative and responsive processes and solutions around conflicts (Lederach 2005, 95-96). Lederach’smediative capacity building theory in transforming intergroup relations is in principle similar to Hammack’s (2009) belief that intergroup relations could be improved by virtue of fostering a “common ingroup identity theory” (129).Hammack’s common ingroup identity theory is founded on American social psychology which emerged in the 1990s as a means of integrating previous intergroup relations theories “with common ingroup identity theory” (Hammack 2009, 129). Although these theories acknowledge the conflict and social identity theories have merit and value, they took the position that intergroup tensions could be minimized by fostering a “common, superordinate identity among individuals” (Hammack 2009, 129). The superordinate identity dynamic is aimed at ensuring that notions of self and others are reshaped to embrace a more profound and all inclusive identity. Hammack uses a 16 year old Muslim Ali as an illustrative example of how this superordinate identity can work. Through this mechanism, Ali, rather than subscribing to “rigid categorizations of ‘Palestinians’ and ‘Islaelis’”, Ali could come to accept by coming into contact with Israelis with whom he shares a common “social identity” as “Israelis and Palestinians committee to peace” or perhaps in a wider group as merely “human beings” (Hammack 2009, 129). As Hammack (2009) explains: This common identity is not necessarily meant to threaten his social identity as a Palestinian. Rather it becomes a “supplement” to Ali’s identity that allows him to transcend the divisiveness of conflicting narratives between Palestinians and Israelis (129). Hammack (2009) takes this common identity or superordinate identity framework and places it into a realistic model. The realistic model is founded on an American community framework referred to as the Hands of Peace program which is predicated on coexistence. In this program individual youth participating in the program live with families and meet daily for two weeks for the purpose of communicating and conducting activities for building and sustaining intergroup alliances (131). A similar program is the Seeds of Peace program which involves sport and art which encourages intergroup cooperation with a view to redefining self-identities and to form a superordinate identity. The Seeds of Peace program functions under the slogan “make one friend” (Hammack 2009, 131). Both programs can be aligned with Lederach’smediative capacity building in that the individuals are encouraged to interact in peaceful settings. In the course of doing so they foster intergroup contact that brings them together in a way that essentially finds a common bond. This is characterized by Hammack (2009) as “exposure to the other” in a way that is diametrically different from the typical conflict that they usually engage in (131). The superordinate identity approach and the mediative capacity building approach in the context of the Middle East shifts the resolution of conflict away from superficial political negotiations which may only bring about short-term peace. Since intergroup conflict is at the heart of the problem it makes sense to attempt to bring the groups together in meaningful and productive ways at an earlier age. With Lederach (2005) intergroup conflict can be resolved by taking advantage of those fields in which the groups automatically come into contact in their daily lives. These fields include schools, hospitals and other forms of necessary daily nuances. These fields provide unique opportunities for building mediative capacity in much the same way as Hammack’s suggestion that a deliberate formation of interactive groups through programs such as Hands of Peace and Seeds of Peace. Ultimately, both the mediative capacity building and the formation of a superordinate identity initiative take the position that transforming social space and reshaping cultural identities will reduce intergroup tensions and conflicts in the long term. Since political mediation and negation have systematically failed to reduce or to eradicate tensions in the Middle East, Lederach and Hammack’s intergroup theories have significant merits. Changing social identities and empathies among the youth can only foster peace as they become the leaders of tomorrow. The concept of social identity under the auspices of intergroup relations also finds currency with Tajel and Turner’s social identity theory. Social identity theory dictates that groups are categorized by drawing on comparisons between ingroup dynamics and outgroup dynamics. Members of the group are therefore motivated to respond to those comparisons by maintaining, enhancing or defending their perceptions of self-worth. One way of for modifying these comparisons is by drawing comparisons to a more positive group (Tajel and Turner 1986). By taking this approach social identity becomes aligned to more positive impressions and provides for defending a more positive image. Therefore the deviant behavior of one member of the ingroup compromises the group’s positive image which therefore compromises individual ingroup members’ idea of the self. Ultimately, when the in-group’s positive social identity is threatened, individual members will either separate from that group or attempt the restoration of the positive image (Tajfel and Turner 2001). As Tajfel and Truner (1986) explain it threats to social identity are going to be felt it is necessary that individuals are required to internalize their identity as members of a group and perceive it as fundamental to their view of themselves. Roccas, Klar and Liviatan (2004) theorize that positive images are characterized as high identification indicators as they tend to illicit more intense emotions. It therefore follows that when a group is identified with positive images they are more likely to defend their positive image. As with Lederach and Hammack’s theories relative to reshaping social identities, Tajel and Turner formulate a similar approach, although in a slightly different way. The common theme that runs throughout is one that envisages individual identity that seeks to reshape those negative aspects that generate ill-will toward other groups. While Lederach and Hammack suggest working with and collaborating with the other group, Tajfel and Turner suggest working with self-concepts by identification and comparisons with other groups that emanate a positive image. In the context of the conflict in the Middle East, each of these approaches to ingroup and individual redefinition and shifting identities, the assumption is that the propensity for intergroup conflict will be reduced in the long run. Individuals will begin to either empathize with or identity with other groups or will endeavor to generate a more positive and defensible positive image. Tajel and Turner’s theory of social identity is especially conducive to the Middle East conflict in that it implies that defending a positive image means doing so without violence and without conflict. In many ways Tajfel and Turner’s theory of social identity can be more closely aligned with Lederach’smediative capacity building theory. Essentially, if a in-group members under the Tajfel and Turner model are more inclined to establish and defend a positive group identity, violent conflict would not cultivate a positive image. It therefore follows that these groups would automatically gravitate toward mediation tactics in defending their positive identities. Reicher and Hopkins (2001) adds to this discourse on social identity theories and intergroup relations or interactions, lending credence that this approach to the Middle East conflict might be the answer to resolving it once and for all. Reicher and Hopkins (2001) inform the reader that self-characterizations are at the heart of political incentives and actions. Persons who establish political conduits and stage political activities utilize constructions of “self-categories” (Reicher and Hopkins 2001, 383). Moreover, the: Political domination may be achieved through reifying social categories therefore denying alternative ways of social being (Reicher and Hopkins 2001, 383). In other words, concepts, identifies and attitudes are fostered as learned and are evaluated in a universal way so that those concepts, identities and attitudes translate into action. These concepts, attitudes and identities give expression to collective approval or disapproval. Quite simply these factors dictate political, social or cultural alliances (Reicher and Hopkins 2001). Changing these factors may be best accomplished by rewriting history, not literally but figuratively (Reicher and Hopkins 2001). Drawing on Reicher and Hopkins argument it is possible the figurative rewriting of history means changing concepts, attitudes and perceptions by ingroup mediation in much the same way as Lederach suggests. It might also be accomplished by integrating the theories and models espoused by Hammack and Tajfel and Turner. In simple terms rewriting history figuratively means working with individual groups in such a way as to promote empathy with other social, political and cultural groups or simply ensuring that individual groups promote positive images that they are more inclined to defend in positive and peaceful ways. Sidananius and Pratto (2001) provide some insight into what it means to rewrite history figuratively. The authors explain that: Despite tremendous effort and what appear to be our best efforts stretching over hundreds of years, discrimination, oppression, brutality, and tyranny remain all too common features of the human condition (2001: 3). Sidananius and Pratto (2001) go on to argue that despite historically brutal experience such as the Civil Rights movement and atrocities of the 1960s, mankind appears to have embraced human travesties rather than escaped them. Signs of human clashes continue at every level in the Los Angeles and Brooklyn’s streets, Bosnia and Rwanda. The overall impression is that human beings appear to be stumbling from “viciousness to viciousness” (Sidananius and Pratto2001, 3). It is therefore this kind of history that needs to be rewritten and thus far, political alliances only appear to perpetuate these kinds of human behavior. Social psychologists such as those reported in this paper instruct that a new approach is needed and that approach involves going to the original source of the problem, the human psyche and away from political leaders as they are the cause of human conflict although not always in a direct way. Politics commands alliances and identification with specific groups and in doing so, it commands conflicts and tensions with opposing groups. Social psychologists provides an alternative to directing human interaction, attitudes, perceptions and interactions that could ultimately resolve not only the conflicts in the Middle East, but build peaceful co-existence across communities globally. Social psychology offers an alternative and long-term approach to gaining insight into the seeds of division in any intergroup interaction and relations. It does so by drawing attention to models based on “personality dynamics”, “individuals’ basic values, anxieties, and beliefs” and “individuals’ information processing” (Sidananius and Pratto2001, 5). Ultimately social psychology is invested in going beyond the surface and tapping into the human mind and its conscience, something the Freud and his followers believed existed in all human beings (Sidananius and Pratto 2001, 5). In rather simple terms, intergroup theory means changing the world and rewriting history one individual at a time. In the context of the Middle East, the conflict has been going on since the end of the Second World War and no one can deny that it is fueled by intergroup dynamics and relations. It therefore follows that the best way forward would be to work with changing individual concepts of culture and identity. After all, groups are comprised of individuals and can only survive based on the consensus and complicity of individual members of the group. Once individual members of a group began to seek more positive comparisons with other groups or begin to identify with members of opposing groups, the source of tension between the opposing groups are minimized if not eliminated altogether. The fact is, history informs that political negotiations and sanctions have not brought the Middle East conflict nearer to a resolution since its early days. Social psychology informs that perhaps the source of those tensions have been avoided for far too long. The source of those tensions are found in individual human attitudes, concepts and identities. Works Cited Hammack, P. (2009) “The Cultural Psychology of American-Based Coexistence Programs for Israeli and Palestinian Youth”. Cited in McGlynn, C.; Biekerman, Z. and Zembylas, M. (eds) Peace Education in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies. MacMillan. Lederach, J. (2005) The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford University Press. Reicher, S. and Hopkins, N. (2001) “Psychology and the End of History: A Critique and a Proposal for the Psychology of Social Categorization”. Political Psychology, Vol. 22(2): 383-407. Roccas, S., Klar, Y., &Liviatan, I. (2004). “Exonerating cognitions, group identification, and personal values as predictors of collective guilt among Jewish-Israelis.” Cited in Branscombe, N.R. and Doosje, B. (Eds.), Collective Guilt: International Perspectives.CambridgeUniversity Press. Sidanius, J. and Pratto, F. (2001) Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. (1986).An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.Cited in S. Worchel, S. and Austin, W. G. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Nelson-Hall Publishers. Read More