ISSN 2631-746X (Print) & 2631-7478 (Online)

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis (JTPP) is a peer-reviewed, biannual, subscription-based, scholarly journal of contemplative cutting edge research and practice on subjects related to human social flourishing and peace.

Editor-in-Chief: Dr Jeremy A Rinker
Publisher: Abhijit Mazumder

ADVISORY BOARD

Dr Amii Omara-Otunnu • Dr Ashwani Kumar • Dr Bandana Purkayastha • Dr Jacint Jordana • Dr John Doyle • Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi • Ms Michelle Ndiaye • Dr Rahul Mukherji • Dr Shankari Sundararaman • Dr Vandana Shiva

JTPP (https://jtpp.uk), bringing together peace practitioners and academics, fills an important transdisciplinary gap that exists in current academic literature.

JTPP endeavours to support scholarship that highlights

○ the human potential for transformation,

○ a holistic and collaborative approach to complex systems,

○ the transdisciplinary nature of solutions to wicked social problems, and

○ a shared sense of purpose in human transnational activism for positive change.

JTPP thus provides a dynamic forum for sharing information and experiences primarily catering to academics, and activists particularly in the disciplines of Peace and Conflict Studies, Political Science, International Relations, Human Rights, History, as well as professionals, policymakers, organisations, institutions and individuals who nurture a firm belief in peace and human rights.

JTPP invites SUBMISSIONS from academics, scholar-practitioners, and social activists. Please see: Author’s Corner (https://jtpp.uk/authors-corner/) for Submission Guidelines.

JTPP follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics ( COPE ).

For SUBSCRIPTION , please see: https://jtpp.uk/subscription-plan/

Published by Frontpage Publications Limited (https://frontpagepublications.com), Level 2, 13 John Prince’s Street, London W1G 0JR, in both print and online versions, in February 2023.

In association with Peace and Justice Studies Association (https://www.peacejusticestudies.org).

ASSOCIATES at: Delhi, Honolulu, Istanbul, Kampala, Kolkata, London, Madrid, Norwalk

Cover photograph: Courtesy Amnesty International

Contents

Contributors

Editor-in-Chief’s Welcome and Introduction
JEREMY A RINKER

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as Cross-Cutting Identities in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Experience of LGBTQ Israeli Human Rights Activists
ROBERT J WELLINGTON

Keeping Full-Scale War at Bay: Representation of the Social Boundary with Armenia in Azerbaijani Newspapers
KARINA V KOROSTELINA, KELLY CHRISTINE BENEDICTO & MICHAEL M SWEIGART

Can a Postcolonial Narrative be a Peace Narrative? Applying Social Identity Theory to History Textbooks in India and Northern Ireland
MELISSA DELURY

Dilemmas and New Perspectives on Zimbabwe—Lesotho—South Africa Identity Conflict
KUDAKWASHE CHIRAMBWI

Kaleidoscope
MEGHNA CHAKRABORTY

Book Reviews
ELEYAN SAWAFTA, JEREMY A RINKER

All articles published in this journal are copyright protected.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study or review,
no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means
(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise)
without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any
person who does any contravention in relation to this
publication, under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988, may be liable to criminal
prosecution and civil claims for damages.

Contributors

BENEDICTO, KELLY CHRISTINE has a Master’s degree from the Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University, USA. She previously worked as an Analyst and Graduate Admissions Liaison for George Mason University’s College of Health and Human Services. Kelly is currently working as a consultant for Deloitte.
(email: kbenedi2@gmu.edu)

CHAKRABORTY, MEGHNA is currently pursuing her PhD in Human Rights from the University of Calcutta, India. She has graduated, at the top of her class, with Master in Human Rights, from the same university. Meghna has taught undergraduate students at Loreto College, Kolkata, India; she has also been a Guest Lecturer for Master’s students pursuing their degree in Human Rights from the University of Calcutta.
(email: meghnachakraborty6363@gmail.com)

CHIRAMBWI, KUDAKWASHE, PhD, is an active researcher in conflict, with a particular interest in intersectionality of peace, security and development. As a founder and coordinator of the Peace, Leadership and Conflict Transformation Programme at the National University of Science and Technology (NUST), Zimbabwe, Kudakwashe is involved in researching on peace and conflict in Africa. At the University of Bradford, UK, he studied peace, security and development at PhD level, as well as a Post-Graduate Diploma in Research Methods at the Centre for Peace and International Development. Kudakwashe had a stint at the Centre for Justice and Peacebuilding, Eastern Mennonite University, USA, with a primary focus on Conflict Transformation. He also did his Masters in Peace and Governance at Africa University, Zimbabwe.
(email: Kudakwashe.chirambwi@nust.ac.zw / kudapeace@gmail.com)

DELURY, MELISSA is a PhD Candidate in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University, USA, specialising in Research Methodology and International Peace Education. Her research explores the relationship between history, peace and conflict, focusing on how past conflict is narrated in history textbooks in India and Northern Ireland. She is a former Fulbright Scholar (India) and received her BA in History from Saint Anselm College, Manchester, NH, USA and MPhil in International Peace Studies from Trinity College, Dublin.
(email: mdelury@gmu.edu)

KOROSTELINA, KARINA V is Professor and the Director of the Peace Lab on Reconciling Conflict and Intergroup Divisions at the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, George Mason University, USA. She is a globally acclaimed expert on identity-based conflicts, protracted conflicts and resilience, reconciliation, role of memory and history, and peace processes. Her research is supported by 46 grants and are presented in more than 90 articles and chapters. Karina is the author/editor of 16 books.
(email: ckoroste@gmu.edu)

RINKER, JEREMY A, PhD, the Editor-in-Chief of the ‘Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis’, is Associate Professor, Department of Peace & Conflict Studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA where his research interests revolve around the centrality of justice discourse, trauma awareness, and collective resilience in movements aimed at transforming social conflict, historical injustices, and structural violence. His publications include ‘Identity, Rights, and Awareness: Anticaste Activism in India and the Awakening of Justice through Discursive Practices’ (Lexington, USA, 2018), ‘Realizing Nonviolent Resilience: Neoliberalism, Societal Trauma, and Marginalized Voice’ (with Jerry T Lawler, Peter Lang, USA, 2020).
(email: jr@jtpp.uk / jarinker@uncg.edu)

SAWAFTA, ELEYAN, an MA in Political Planning and Development (2021) from An-Najah National University, Palestine, now pursues his graduate studies in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG), USA. Eleyan is also working as a Graduate Research Assistant for the School of Education, UNCG, focusing on the relationship between development and conflict by using political economic analysis and critiquing public policies. He has been an invited commentator on democracy, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, environmental justice, and development across various media, programmes, and functions across the Middle East and USA.
(email: ersawafta@uncg.edu)

SWEIGART, MICHAEL M is a PhD Candidate and Manager of the Reconciling Conflicts & Intergroup Divisions Lab at the Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University, USA. His interdisciplinary research examines how to resolve tensions between global and domestic norms that often produce backlash to transnational movements for the rights and social inclusion of stigmatised minority groups.
(email: msweigar@gmu.edu)

WELLINGTON, ROBERT, PhD, currently teaches AP Psychology, Contemporary Global Issues, and Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the Bullis School in Potomac, MD, USA. He is also an Adjunct Professorial Lecturer at the American University’s School of International Service and Wesley Theological Seminary teaching undergraduate and graduate courses on Intercultural Understanding, Reconciliation and Justice, and Conflict Resolution. Robert’s research interests include social identity theory, human sexuality/gender identity, religion/spirituality in conflict resolution, dialogue, and restorative justice with regional interests in China, Israel-Palestine, and South Africa.
(email: robert_wellington@bullis.org)

Disclaimer

While the information contained in this journal is believed to be true and accurate at the time of publication, neither the authors, editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors and/or omissions that may have been inadvertently made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the materials contained in this journal.

Editor-in-Chief’s Welcome and Introduction

Welcome to the ninth issues of the Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis (JTPP).

As usual, we are glad that you have chosen to read us. This issue, although slightly shorter than the past issues, will not disappoint. This ninth issue, while focused broadly on social identity in conflict, offers a board and deep dive into other socially constructed boundaries like sexual orientation, public discourse, and narrative as they relate to social conflict.

As always, we are indebted to the Peace and Justice Studies Association (PJSA), a bi-national social justice organisation that supports the work of the JTPP. As an affiliated journal of the PJSA, we supply members with electronic copies and endeavour to publish innovative research and practice pieces of PJSA members, who are often on the cutting-edge of peace and justice work worldwide. Please see our open call for papers at https://jtpp.uk/call-for-papers/—there you can also find what is in our most current issues as well as archives to past issues. We encourage PJSA members, or other scholar-practitioners of peace and justice studies to submit their articles for review. We are still a new and emerging journal for this transdisciplinary work of peace, and we appreciate your support. Please subcribe, share your ideas, and send us feedback. We are always eager to hear from readers and expand our scope to always improve.

This ninth issue is based on the vexing psycho-social realities of identity. David Quammen (2012) has quipped: ‘Identity is such a crucial affair that one shouldn’t rush into it.’¹ This sums up both the complexity and importance of the idea of identity in social life, but such a quip should not simply caution but also inspire possibility. In the contemporary cosmopolitan world ‘if I walk down New York’s Fifth Avenue on an ordinary day, I will have within sight more human beings that those prehistoric hunter-gathers saw in a lifetime’.² Still, this cosmopolitan and global diversity and interconnectedness also brings conflict over difference in norms and values. This diversity is life-giving and at the same time it is often weaponised as a means of division. Jenkins (2008) reminds us that ‘[Identity] is a process—identification—not a “thing”. It is not something that one can have, or not; it is something one does.’³ The papers in this issue speak to this aspect of identity as a socially constructed process with ephemeral materiality. Global in perspective these pieces all address identity in social conflict and challenge readers to think of the ways in which identity is used and abused in the service of powerful interests and/or perceived shared or universal values.

The first piece by Robert Wellington (pp.13-35) focuses on gender identity among human rights activists working in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His piece entitled ‘Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as Cross-Cutting Identities in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Experience of LGBTQ Israeli Human Rights Activists’ challenges readers to think about the ‘neglected area of understanding’ (p.14) in the field of conflict analysis and resolution. LGBTQ community in the decades long Israeli-Palestinian conflict created ‘cross-cutting interactions’ (p.21) in which ‘superordinate goals’ (p.25) could be realised. Through interviews with activists Wellington argues that LGBTQ cross-cutting identities were seen to enhance peacemaking efforts by building solidarity as ‘the LGBTQ community knows what it is likely to be disempowered (p.28)’. Wellington’s contribution speaks to the unique voice and perspective of the LGBTQ community and their hopeful ability to exhibit what he calls the ‘Phoenix Effect’ (p.28) of being able to rise from the ashes of hate and fear.

The second article in this issue takes us to the Caucuses region of Armenia and Azerbaijan to explore the social boundaries in newspaper accounts of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Karina V Korostelina, Kelly Christine Benedicto and Michael M Sweigart’s article entitled ‘Keeping Full-Scale War at Bay: Representation of the Social Boundary with Armenia in Azerbaijani Newspapers’ (pp.36-65) provides an analysis of social boundaries created and reproduced in media account of this international protracted social conflict. Helping us to make the narratives that define these boundaries more audible, this piece’s ‘critical discourse analysis’ (p.41) identifies five primary clusters or themes ‘which explain how the Azerbaijani government-controlled media produced the meaning of the national boundary’ (p.42). ‘[A] clear pattern of boundary construction based on protagonist self-representation and delegitimisation of the Other’ (p.58) was evident from the authors’ analysis of these themes and help solidify social boundaries and perpetuate destructive social conflict in this region.

The third article in this issue builds on methodologies of discourse and narrative analysis to explore the role of textbooks in shaping and escalating conflict between India’s Hindus and Muslims and ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland. Posed as a question, Melissa DeLury’s article entitled ‘Can a Postcolonial Narrative be a Peace Narrative? Applying Social Identity Theory to History Textbooks in India and Northern Ireland’ (pp.66-86) explores the way that ‘social identities, including national and religious identities’ (p.66) are both represented in textbooks informed by ‘colonial legacies’ (pp.67-68). DeLury’s provocative piece ‘builds on social identity theorists’ claims that identities are not primordial’ (p.80) and articulates how ‘history textbooks play an important role in these identity formations’ (p.81). This comparative cross-cultural approach points to the ‘shared pasts’ (p.81) of this religious and nationalist identities and indicates towards another means of peacebuilding through paying close attention to educational narrative and discourse.

The final article in this issue takes us to Africa. In ‘Conceptualising Social Conflict Complexities: Dilemmas and New Perspectives on Zimbabwe—Lesotho—South Africa Identity Conflict’ Kudakwashe (pp.87-108) Chirambwi explores identity, favouritism, and identity in Zimbabwean and Lesotho nationals migrating to South Africa. Using Marie Dugan’s nested paradigm,⁴ Chirambwi analyses the issue-specific and relational conflicts of the pressures of migration and citizenship identity. Arguing that ‘conflicts surrounding migrants are nested and entangled, as such, morph from a specific issue, relational to system-level structural conflicts’ (p.105) that trigger ‘hatred and eventual xenophobic attacks on migrants’ (p.106). This final piece in this issue provides an important caste study into the ‘entangled conflicts’ (p.106) of migrants and calls for further research on how migrants can be mobilised to effect change.

Finally, two book reviews by Eleyan Sawafta (review of Craft & Regan, 2020) and me (review of Soundararajan, 2022) underscore the themes of trauma and reconciliation in dealing with identity boundaries, conflict, and the legacies of settler colonialism. Together these book reviews challenge scholars and practitioners to both self-reflect and monitor their positionality and impacts when engaging with indigenous contexts of healing and reconciliation. Although written for different audiences, both these important new books provide theoretical and practical (e.g., praxis related) insights for realising a more socially just world. Thenmozhi Soundararajan’s The Trauma of Caste: A Dalit Feminist Meditation on Survivorship, Healing, and Abolition is causing a buzz in anti-caste activists circles in both the US and India, and is destined to be a core text for those studying healing and resistance in marginalised communities. In the words of Rinker in his review of the work, Thenmozhi Soundararajan’s ‘unique book at once remembers and memorialises past anti-caste movement leaders and imagines a new way to organise and heal from the past collective trauma of millennia of caste oppression’ (pp.120-21). Like Soundararajan’s empathetic witness to suffering, the authors in the edited volume entitled Pathways of Reconciliation: Indigenous and Settler Approaches to Implementing the TRC’s Calls to Action (pp.113-18) ‘rally around the idea of reconciliation as a process’ (p.113). While both these books point to the complexities of healing and reconciliation of hardened identity positions, they also raise questions about how, and if, such ‘initiatives/interventions are measurable or not’ (p.115). These book reviews should help both scholars and practitioners parse a growing literature on collective historical trauma and reconciliation.

As usual, our regular Kaleidoscope section also connects current events to the themes raised in this issue. As a package, this issue on social identity weaves complex interconnections between praxis, conflict, and social change. If you have read this far, I am sure you will not want to forgo reading further.

Again, I thank you for picking up this issue of the JTPP and encourage you to share this issue with friends, colleagues, fellow peacemaking activists, and anyone who could benefit from the critical analysis of identity in conflict that one finds herein. Encourage your friends and colleagues to subscribe to the JTPP (https://jtpp.uk/subscription-plan) and support our work! We need your help in increasing our readership, planting a transdisciplinary flag for peace, and moving human thought and research on peace forward.

With metta (loving kindness and compassion for a fractured world),

Jeremy A Rinker, PhD

Department of Peace and Conflict Studies

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA

Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis (JTPP)

E: jr@jtpp.uk / jarinker@uncg.edu

6 February 2023

NOTES

1 Quammen, David, The Flight of the Iguana: A Sidelong View of Science and Nature, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2012, p.60

2 Appiah, Kwame Anthony, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, New York: W W Norton & Company, 2007, p.xii

3 Jenkins, Richard, Social Identity, Third Edition (New York & London: Routledge), 2008, p.5

4 Dugan, Marie A, ‘A Nested Theory of Conflict’, A Leadership Journal: Women in Leadership —Sharing the Vision, Vol. 1, 1996

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
as Cross-Cutting Identities in
the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:

The Experience of LGBTQ Israeli Human Rights Activists

Robert J Wellington

ABSTRACT

Emanating from literature on social identity theory, intersectionality theory, gender and sexuality, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this research examines sexual orientation and gender identity as cross-cutting identities through the experiences of LGBTQ Israeli Human Rights activists. Data for this qualitative study were collected through two months of fieldwork in Israel-Palestine interviewing ten LGBTQ Israeli Human Rights activists. The research design was interpretive with a constructivist and phenomenological approach. Questions examined include how sexual orientation and gender identity are experienced on a personal level, individual interactions between LGBTQ Israelis and LGBTQ Palestinians, and how being LGBTQ influences perspective on both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace efforts. Findings suggest that cross-categorisation has the greatest potential when obstructive elements such as racism, nationalism, arrogance, condescension, pride, ethnocentrism, narcissism, ulterior motives, saviour-like attitudes, and hero mentalities are mitigated. Furthermore, participants shared feelings of being marginalised within their own communities. Such experiences create greater potential for empathising with ‘the other’ and especially LGBTQ members of the other group. The data also illustrate that there are salient cleavages within the LGBTQ community as there are in other oppressed groups. These divisions are caused, at least in part, by a desire of the peripheral group to gain greater approximation to the centre group or the group in power (i.e., the heterosexual community in this case). Sexual orientation and gender identity as cross-cutting identities are underutilised tools in the field of conflict analysis and resolution with tremendous potential in the cultivation of superordinate goals, super-categorisation, superordinate identities, boundary shifts, and identity transformation.

KEYWORDS

Sexual orientation, gender identity, cross-cutting identities, social identity theory, conflict resolution, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, LGBTQ+ community

INTRODUCTION

Research Question

This paper stems from my research dissertation in which I examined how LGBTQ Israeli Human Rights activists experience sexual orientation and gender identity as cross-cutting identities. More specifically, do sexual orientation and gender identity serve as cross-cutting identities between LGBTQ Israelis and LGBTQ Palestinians? Furthermore, to what extent, if any, does a shared LGBTQ identity mitigate conflict between adverse parties? Does it matter if ‘the other’ or my ‘enemy’ shares the same oppressed (i.e., subordinate) identity as I do (i.e., being LGBTQ or some other identity that is not part of the dominant norm––more about this later)?

Do sexual orientation and gender identity serve as cross-cutting identities between LGBTQ Israelis and LGBTQ Palestinians?

This research covers an important and neglected area of understanding in looking at the LGBTQ community generally within the context and field of conflict analysis and resolution and specifically within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a cross-cutting identity keeping in view the larger framework of social identity theory and intersectionality theory.

My research question is made up of three major components:

(1) sexual orientation and gender identity as examples of (subordinate and often neglected) identity,

(2) cross-cutting identities as a kind of identity, and

(3) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as context to apply these concepts, though this idea of oppressed cross-cutting identities could be applicable in any conflict setting.

In this introduction, I present the concept of identity and then focus on two of its components: sexual and gender identities as examples of identity and cross-cutting identities as a kind of identity. Finally, I describe how, in my research, I looked at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through these lenses of identity.

Identity and Conflict

Much has been written and researched on identity and conflict.¹ For decades scholars and practitioners alike have looked at the various roles identity plays in conflict. Identities such as nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, class, socioeconomic status, language, and tribe have all been examined to see if conflict can be better understood, reduced, or resolved by including identity in the equation for peace.

Furthermore, the role of identity is often mentioned as a key aspect of conflict. For example, in his chapter ‘Analyzing Intractability’, William Zartman specifically mentions identity as a central component of intractable conflicts. He writes, ‘Identities in intractable conflicts not only are polarized but are actually dependent on the denigration of the Other’, and he goes on to elaborate on what he calls ‘zero-sum identities’.² Zero-sum identities are those which are considered to cancel each other out and are often based on assumptions, generalisations, or stereotypes. For instance, facetiously speaking, you can’t be conservative and LGBTQ, you can’t be liberal and religious, you can’t be a Republican and a vegan, you can’t be a Democrat and pro-life. These various identities have all been erroneously pitted against one another because the reality of humanity is more complex than these oversimplified binaries. As we shall see from this research, there are people who, in fact, are both conservative and LGBTQ, LGBTQ and religious, etc.

Zero-sum identities are those which are considered to cancel each other out and are often based on assumptions, generalisations, or stereotypes. For instance, facetiously speaking, you can’t be conservative and LGBTQ, you can’t be liberal and religious, you can’t be a Republican and a vegan, you can’t be a Democrat and pro-life. These various identities have all been erroneously pitted against one another because the reality of humanity is more complex than these oversimplified binaries.

If we take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an example and look over the span of decades of fighting, we can clearly see these same false binaries and how ethnic, national, and religious identities have been polarised into zero-sum relationships (i.e., Jews vs Arabs, Israelis vs Palestinians, Jews vs Muslims). As we shall see in my conclusions, the LGBTQ Israeli Human Rights activists I interviewed who are against the occupation and support Palestinian rights are often condemned and ridiculed as ‘traitors’ or ‘Arab-lovers’. The fallible zero-sum argument here is that you cannot support Palestinian rights and still love Israel at the same time. As we shall see from my interviews, this is not the case. But what about identities which the conflicting parties have in common? Could the use of identity not only help us analyse conflict but also build bridges between conflicting parties? I posit yes!

LGBTQ Identity

One identity which has received little attention is the LGBTQ identity which, for the sake of this research, can be operationalised as sexual orientation and gender identity. While we are learning more about the LGBTQ identity as more laws are created to protect this community and make its members feel safer to express and celebrate this identity, the sad reality is that there still remains a certain degree of discomfort and unfamiliarity around sexual orientation and gender identity which does not exist or exists to a lesser extent when examining other forms of identity. When studying political science, international relations, peace studies, or conflict resolution, how much attention is devoted to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) issues? How many academic courses are devoted to the plight of the LGBTQ community in conflict zones? When looking at courses on gender studies, how much attention is given to biological gender, the female-male binary, and how much to gender identity and to people who fall outside of that binary? It is precisely because of this discomfort and unfamiliarity that I decided to research sexual orientation and gender identity as a bridge-building or cross-cutting identity. LGBTQ identity has a great deal of untapped potential in the field of conflict analysis and resolution.

When studying political science, international relations, peace studies, or conflict resolution, how much attention is devoted to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) issues? How many academic courses are devoted to the plight of the LGBTQ community in conflict zones? When looking at courses on gender studies, how much attention is given to biological gender, the female-male binary, and how much to gender identity and to people who fall outside of that binary?

One study which relates to intersectionality theory and cross-cutting identities is Mckeown...

Keeping Full-Scale War at Bay:

Representation of the Social Boundary with
Armenia in Azerbaijani Newspapers

Karina V Korostelina, Kelly Christine Benedicto &
Michael M Sweigart

ABSTRACT

The politics of difference rests on the construction of the social boundary as central for the conflict dynamics between nation-states. This paper is centred on the analysis of media narratives in English-language government-controlled Azerbaijani newspapers in order to explore the process of making social boundaries and differences for external consumption by the international community. The paper employs thematic and discourse analysis of thirty-nine articles. The analysis discusses specific identity based mechanisms that the Azerbaijani government-controlled media use to construct the national boundary for the international community through:

(1) narratives about each group (the favourable in-group [Azerbaijan] representation and the unfavourable out-group [Armenia] representation); 

(2) narratives about the boundary and difference (the importance of national boundary values); and, 

(3) shared narrative about relations across the boundary (the out-group [Armenia] is responsible for the conflict and ‘traumatisation’ of Azerbaijani society).

This construction of social boundaries for the international community rests on normativity aiming to delegitimise out-group (Armenia) as an aggressor that threatens not only Azerbaijan’s security and existence but also world order to preserve and redefine balance of power and promote support of the other states.

KEYWORDS

Social boundary, inter-state conflict, Azerbaijan, Armenia, social identity, threat

INTRODUCTION

Many studies have posited social boundaries as central for understanding conflict dynamics between nation-states. In conflict relations between two states, national governments contribute to the production of multiple dimensions of the national boundary, which redefine the conflict and position of the two states within a specific normative order. In the system of international relations, construction of the boundary often involves legitimisation of the ingroup and delegitimisation of the outgroup, especially when targeting the international community as an audience. This paper explores the production and functioning of the social boundary between Azerbaijan and Armenia for international audiences. It presents an analysis of how English-language media narratives in government-controlled Azerbaijani newspapers position the social boundary between Armenia-Azerbaijan boundary and thereby justify Azerbaijan’s stand in the conflict and current hostilities of 2022.

The Construction and Functioning of Social Boundaries

The formation and functioning of social identities centre on a social boundary that not only outlines the relationship between the ingroup and the outgroup but also defines connotations of the ingroup’s identity (Barth, 1981). As social boundaries are relational, this ingroup identity meaning is defined in opposition to the perceived identity of other groups (Barth, 1969; Horowitz, 1985). Social boundaries also help increase ingroup self-esteem through favourable comparison with outgroups (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Through the process of establishing and maintaining social boundaries, people develop relations within their groups on each side of the boundary and institute relations with other groups across the boundary. As a shared narrative, the social boundary is a ‘contiguous zone of contrasting density, rapid transition, or separation between internally connected clusters of population and/or activity for which human participants create shared representations’ (Tilly, 2005: 132). These shared representations, as symbolic meanings of reality, arrive from a person’s membership in an identity group and are expressed through the media and other social practices (Howarth, 2002; Wagner & Hayes, 2005, Moscovici, 1963). They also serve as organisers of the symbolic processes involved in social relations (Jovchelovitch, 2007). 

These social boundaries function as narratives that constitute collective identities and shared sites or zones common to two groups (Zandberg, 2010; Thelen, 2002). As people tend to minimise intra-group differences and amplify inter-group dissimilarities, the social boundary can become increasingly solidified over time (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

A social boundary serves as a crucial tool in establishing collective identity politics and tensions (Horowitz, 1985; Barth, 1981; Cohen, 1985; 1986; Tilly, 2005). It is formed to create, challenge, and preserve existing power relations and policies of exclusion and inclusion and thus supports social hierarchies, marginalisation, and discrimination (Bourdieu, 1977; Lipset, 1959; Tilly, 2003; 2006). Social boundaries contribute to the establishment of a social order, defining and classifying relations between social groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This process occurs through the invention or borrowing of different boundaries, encounters between previously distinct or competing groups, and social processes that trigger shifts in the meaning of ingroup identities (McAdam et al, 2001). Cultural and political elites impact the process of boundary creation and maintenance by prescribing how inclusive, exclusive, and open a particular social boundary should be (Horowitz, 1985). The social boundary also aids government agents and political elites in externalising and attributing problems to enemy groups (Reno, 2000). Other factors contributing to the functioning of social boundaries include the cultural repertoires, traditions, and prevailing narratives in a particular group as well as political movements or everyday interactions between individuals (Doevenspeck, 2011; Lamont, 2000; Somers, 1994; Swidler, 2001).

Social boundaries contain various conceptions, interpretative schemata, and cultural dimensions that create, maintain, and contest differences between groups of people (Lamont et al, 2015). Starting from the seminal work of Durkheim who described boundaries of the sacred and the profane, multiple studies have analysed how different dimensions of boundaries are formed (Durkheim, 1965). For example, upper-middle-class African-Americans employ a social boundary of professional competence and achievement while working-class African-Americans emphasise the moral divide between caring and non-caring personalities and residents of disadvantaged rural neighbourhoods to establish boundary between ‘street’ and ‘decent’ people (Lamont & Fleming, 2005; Anderson, 2000). Different types of social boundaries are employed to draw distinctions between natives and immigrants in Europe and the United States [USA] (Alba, 2005; Bail, 2008). Some research describes different dimensions of social boundaries between nations. For instance, the differences in market principles, solidarity, and aesthetics constitute the core distinctions between French and American national identities (Lamont & Thévenot, 2000).

In social sciences, social boundaries are mostly used to study inequality and the exclusion of racial and ethnic minorities in nation-building processes, immigration, and gender relations. In the field of conflict studies, more specifically, most research concentrates on the role of established social boundaries (e.g. racial, national, ethnic, and religious). Boundary change is linked to the development of conflicts; perceived threat to these boundaries impacts the nature and intensity of collective violence (Cohen, 1985; 1986). Salient and impermeable boundaries reinforce the willingness of group members to fight against others for power and resources (Kriesberg, 2003). Some boundary-work mechanisms, including boundary imposition and boundary activation, can lead to ethnic cleansing and genocides (Tilly, 2005).

Despite a significant body of research on the role of social boundaries in the conflict resolution field, very few studies are concerned with social boundaries associated with conflict dynamics between nation-states. These boundaries can interact with different dimensions of nation, race, religion, or ethnicity through the definitional power of dominant actors, thus affecting the processes of conflict and reconciliation. The paper addresses the creation and functioning of social boundaries between two nations in conflict—Armenia and Azerbaijan—as they are presented in Azerbaijani mass media.

Research Context

The conflict over Karabakh is unique because it is an interstate conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, yet also a separatist conflict between an unrecognised government in Karabakh and the government of Azerbaijan (Gunter & Yavuz, 2022; Riches & Palmowski, 2019; Simão, 2016). Karabakh is a small region only slightly larger than the US State of Rhode Island, near the western border of Azerbaijan and the eastern border of Armenia. While mountainous and non-agricultural, Nagorno-Karabakh is integral to the identities of both nations, and they have been at war over the region since 1988, with only a 25-year-old ceasefire agreement keeping full-scale war at bay (Croissant, 1998; Radnitz, 2019; Zverev, 2021).

The full-scale war that defines the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict began as the USSR collapsed in 1991, and both nations rushed to define new and independent national borders (Hoch, 2020; Broers, 2020; de Waal et al, 2020). The open fighting over the Nagorno-Karabakh region resulted in approximately 30,000 deaths (BBC, 2016). In 1994, a ceasefire was signed after Armenia not only took Nagorno-Karabakh, but also seven eastern Azerbaijani regions (CIA, 2019). The military defeat was not only humiliating for Azerbaijan but resulted in almost one million Internally Displaced Persons [IDPs] (Cornell, 2011; Gunter & Yavuz, 2022).

Since the 1994 ceasefire, the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict has been described by some observers as a ‘frozen conflict’, which Kriesberg (2003) defines as ‘conflicts in which both sides have remained fully committed to their incompatible positions but where neither has yet dared to attempt resolution through accommodation, withdrawal, or military conquest’ (Andrei, 2019; Grant, 2017; Kurt et al, 2022;...

Can a Postcolonial Narrative be a Peace Narrative?

Applying Social Identity Theory to
History Textbooks in India and Northern Ireland

Melissa DeLury

ABSTRACT

Identity is a driving force of what shapes our reality and gives meaning to our lives. Rather than existing in isolation, identities are largely shaped by the cultural contexts in which we live. Social identities, including national and religious identities, provide individuals a way to make sense of their complex social and political lives. History textbooks are examples of cultural artefacts that shape identities, particularly as it relates to national identity. In this way, social identity theory can provide a useful framework to explore conflict in two postcolonial contexts experiencing conflict based on religious nationalism: India and Northern Ireland. This article begins with providing a brief background on the context in India and Northern Ireland; it will then move to provide an overview of relevant social identity theories. The next sections will apply social identity theories to the two different contexts to explore how culture may inform the saliency of certain social identities. The article will conclude with possibilities for peacebuilding and the question of whether a postcolonial narrative can be a peace narrative in both contexts.

KEYWORDS

Social identity, India, Northern Ireland, postcolonialism, peace, history textbooks

INTRODUCTION

Identity is a driving force of what shapes our reality and gives meaning to our lives. Social identities, including national and religious identities, provide individuals a way to make sense of their complex social and political lives.¹ Rather than existing in isolation, identity is influenced by cultural contexts and structures. One such structure that aids in shaping identity is education. Serving as a direct link between the state and the minds of students, formal educational spaces disseminate ‘knowledge’ regarding a shared national identity. Within formal educational spaces, history textbooks are an essential tool for states to disseminate this knowledge and ‘normalise the nation’.² Apple and Christian-Smith stress that history textbooks are inherently political because decisions on what to include or exclude are often aligned with the political ideologies of those in power.³ This has led to ‘textbook wars’ and the constant revision of history textbooks depending on who has control of writing the history of the nation.⁴

In conflict environments, the political nature of history textbooks becomes more complicated when national belonging—or who does and does not belong within the nation––is contingent on religion.

In conflict environments, the political nature of history textbooks becomes more complicated when national belonging––or who does and does not belong within the nation––is contingent on religion. When membership to a religious group is connected to national belonging, or who belongs within the nation, conflict can escalate quickly. While social identities, such as religious and national identity, can provide a positive source of connection, Amartya Sen argues that it can also result in violence, especially when religion is connected to the conflict.⁵ This is due to individuals and groups moving away from a pluralistic sense of self (with many identities) to the increased saliency of one, singular identity that supersedes all others. The connection between national belonging’s contingency on religious identification can be traced to colonial legacies in two countries experiencing unrest today: India and Northern Ireland.

Social identity theory posits that identity is not static, but dynamic––and while a singular salient identity can lead to violence, a pluralist sense of identity reduces the likelihood of violence. This article poses the question if a postcolonial narrative can be a peace narrative for both contexts.

Conflict in these two countries can be seen as both social and communal, making social identity theory⁶ a useful framework to explore the ongoing violence in both India and Northern Ireland. While each context is complex and distinct, there may be similar identity-forming legacies of colonialism, which have both contributed to the conflicts. Yet even though identity can be a driver of the conflict in these similar but distinct settings, it may also provide a possibility for peace. I approach the concept of peace using Johann Galtung’s peace theory, which is positive peace.⁷ Social identity theory posits that identity is not static, but dynamic—and while a singular salient identity can lead to violence, a pluralist sense of identity reduces the likelihood of violence. This article poses the question if a postcolonial narrative can be a peace narrative for both contexts.

The connection between history textbooks and national identity formation has been extensively researched in a variety of spaces. Studies include representation of identities and conflicts in history textbooks. For example, Sanjay Joshi examines high-school history textbooks to explore competing narratives in Indian and Pakistani textbooks. Additionally, Marie Lall applied social identity theory to her comparative study on how Partition is narrated in both Indian and Pakistani history textbooks.⁸ As B R Ambedkar stressed, the connection between Hinduism and caste is fundamental to discussions of identity and division.⁹ In Northern Ireland, Luke Terra examined history textbooks to explore the changing context of history textbooks in Northern Ireland as a result of the conflict during ‘The Troubles’.¹⁰ While there is vast literature on partitions globally as a result of colonialism, I focus on colonial legacies related to identity formations and history education in connection to the communal conflicts in India and Northern Ireland.

This article applies a social identity lens to examine how religion became a salient identity informing ingroup and outgroup membership, social boundary creation and conflict dynamics in both India and Northern Ireland, two countries that have been partitioned along seemingly religious lines. This article begins by providing a brief background on the historical and current context in India and Northern Ireland with a particular focus on the partitioning of both countries at the end of Home Rule and time of independence, respectively. I then provide the theoretical framework for this article: social identity theory, followed by a discussion on the colonial legacies on education policies in both contexts, with an emphasis on religious identity. Social identity theory will then be applied to both contexts to explore the legacies of identity formation during colonialism and the role history education has played in maintaining these divisions.

This article concludes with possibilities for peace and future research.

CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

This section provides both the historical and current context of the conflict in both India and Northern Ireland. While the histories of both India and Northern Ireland are vast, I focus on the period of independence and the partitioning of both countries by the British, as it is most relevant for this article and a discussion of conflict dynamics.

The conflict between India and Pakistan continues to impact the region and is most relevant for this article’s focus on the saliency of religious and national identities in conflict environments. The tension over Kashmir continues to engage both India and Pakistan in disputes at the international level. This tension dates back to Indian independence and the simultaneous creation of India and Pakistan on 15 August 1947, when the British partitioned these two nations along religious lines. Under this arrangement, it was believed that Pakistan would be a Muslim-majority country and India would remain a Hindu-majority/secular country. Although these newly independent nations had previously shared a rich history, Joshi claims that there was an immediate need to create two distinctive national identities.¹¹ Following independence, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, ushered India towards becoming a secular democracy. The first Prime Minister of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, also spoke about creating a secular democracy in Pakistan, yet Pakistan grew to position itself as a homeland for Muslims.¹²

In India, this conflict also informs recent national policies implemented by Prime Minister Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). These policies are said to have been increasingly discriminatory against Muslims, further highlighting the role of religion in connection with national belonging. For example, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) excluded Muslims from the list of religious groups eligible for expedited citizenship in India. This expedited process would be reserved for those who had immigrated prior to 2014 from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.¹³ Lastly, recent textbook revisions under the BJP administration have sought to remove certain aspects of history under the guise of alleviating stress for students during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁴ Among the removed topics are ‘democracy’, ‘secularism’, ‘gender’ and ‘caste’. These policies further the goals of Modi’s BJP government including promoting Hindu nationalism.

The conflict in Northern Ireland can be traced to the period of British rule on the island. The start of the 20th century gave rise to a growing movement for independence from Great Britain. Unionists wished to remain part of Great Britain, whereas Nationalists wished to become independent from Great Britain. Unionists consisted mainly of individuals identifying as Protestant, whereas Nationalists consisted mainly of individuals identifying as Catholics. It is important to note that Unionists’ (Protestant) loyalties to the Great Britain may stem from the special privileges and treatment shown from the Crown, as opposed to the Nationalists (Catholics) who fought for independence from the British.¹⁵ In 1921, the British partitioned Ireland into the Republic of Ireland (south), which was independent from Great Britain, and Northern Ireland (north) which would remain a part of the United Kingdom. This led to national borders being defined on seemingly religious lines: Northern Ireland with a Protestant-majority and Ireland with a Catholic-majority. However, Northern Ireland still remained one-third Catholic. Discrimination against Catholics occurred via job opportunities, educational prospects, etc, eventually leading to the deadly conflict known as...

Conceptualising Social Conflict Complexities:

Dilemmas and New Perspectives on Zimbabwe—Lesotho—South Africa Identity Conflict

Kudakwashe Chirambwi

ABSTRACT

Given the unconsidered complexities in social conflicts manifesting at the regional level, especially those that embrace intrastate and interstate identity differences, I undertook research that sought to address the question: How can we understand and manage better the complexity of the social conflicts between Zimbabweans, Basotho and South Africans working in farmlands in South Africa? The paper argues for the centrality of the asymmetric conflict in explaining the anti-immigrant sentiments. The research was motivated by increasing incidences of bloodbaths between Basotho, Zimbabweans, and South Africans farmworkers in South Africa, who are clashing over identity differences, among other issues. In order to gain an in-depth understanding of the complexities, the study was operationalised through a phenomenological research strategy and the nested theory of conflict which sought to understand interlinking layers of identity conflicts. Empirical methodologies, including interviewing 80 participants, ethnographic observations, and studies built on secondary data, were used to gain new insights. Research evidence revealed complex entanglements of identity and relational and systemic issues. Identity issues involve incompatible goals as farmworkers from different countries compete for the same jobs. Zimbabwean farmworkers are perceived to be unfairly favoured by the white farm owners since they are preferred first over Basotho and South Africans in terms of hard work, resilience, and affordable contract terms. The perceived favouritism, while complex, is further complicated by the interconnectedness to other issues such as general relations. Research evidence has revealed that clashes in farms are manifestations of problems having to do with interaction patterns and feeling towards each other. Zimbabweans are seen as economic refugees by both South Africans and Basotho. What also emerged is that the social conflict is beyond specific issues and relationships, but a manifestation of systemic issues. Here, the conflict is institutionalised in sort of a structured way within the social system of South Africa. As such, the various complexities and layers of conflict not only pose theoretical and conceptual challenges, but it is extremely difficult to come up with intervention strategies that are sensitive and effective to all the interlocking levels of conflict.

KEYWORDS

Conflict, identity, South Africa, nested theory, farmworkers, migrant

INTRODUCTION

A group of Zimbabweans living in South Africa clashed with Lesotho nationals over farm jobs in South Africa. It is alleged that the Lesotho nationals are accusing Zimbabweans of taking their jobs on local farms. Witnesses say at least 20 people were injured and several shacks were set alight and vandalised. South African Police (SARS) spokesperson in the Province Brigadier Novela Potelwa said Public Order Police (POP) officers were sent to Robertson to continue monitor the situation. Air support was also sent to the area to keep an eye on things (Zimbabwean and Lesotho Nationals Clash in South Africa, Nkoe, 18 March 2022).

and,

Zimbabwean farm workers are staying here illegally. South Africa is the only country in the world that puts Zimbabweans ahead of local citizens. Most of these farm workers are marrying our ladies for citizenship. Even if they do this, they are still illegal and shouldn’t get employed here. This is the reason why we are advocating for the prioritisation of South Africans on jobs in the farms. I am a member and subscribe to the hashtags #PutSouthAfricansFirst and #NormaliseHiringSACitizens because these people are taking all the jobs in South Africa (Informant, 10 South African migrant farm workers).

The newspaper caption and epigraph reveal the peculiarity and complexity of farm conflict. The above two excerpts mirror the new turn in violence in South Africa. This manifests at two levels: black-to-black violence instigated by South Africans against Zimbabweans and Lesotho nationals, and Basotho, non-nationals of South Africa, attack Zimbabwean migrant farm workers for stealing their jobs. This paper aims to investigate and debate the question of contemporary irruptions of violence against migrants and inquire into the different responses intended to counteract conflict. The enduring question is: why do individuals, groups, and societies come to believe that peaceful means and legal avenues of redress, are insufficient or improper to achieve a social goal and to view violent action as morally legitimate and necessary for change?

The analysis proceeds in steps. The first section examines the Zimbabwean and Basotho animus and shows how issue-specific and relational conflicts regulated their interaction. The second section, which builds from the first, focuses on the manifestation of the asymmetrical conflict between South Africans and Zimbabwe migrants, usually sustained by simmering system-level structural issues such as citizenship, belonging, identity and legitimacy. I further examine how entangled conflicts build up into different forms of violence, resulting in increased vulnerability of immigrants. The third section argues that, in response to violence, migrants coalesce and form alliances against each other. The last section explores possible pathways going forward.

The simultaneity in attacks on Zimbabwean farm workers by other migrants from different countries not only shows the manifestation of potential for new violent turns but raises essential theoretical and policy questions, requiring renewed critical investigation.

For purposes of analytical purchase, I explore conflict irruptions by distinguishing between three scales of migrants: cross-border migrants (Zimbabweans), Bantustans migrants (Lesotho nationals who are geographically located in the bowls of South Africa), and homeland or internal migrants (South Africans). Although it is wrong to think in dichotomies, simply because these are not pre-given categories, yet the vertically differentiated social relations between Zimbabweans and South Africans and the hierarchized social relations between Zimbabweans and Lesotho nationals cannot be overlooked both discursively and materially. The simultaneity in attacks on Zimbabwean farm workers by other migrants from different countries not only shows the manifestation of potential for new violent turns but raises essential theoretical and policy questions, requiring renewed critical investigation. A handful of studies have investigated the precarity of migrants in the labour market and ignored to compare how the three—Zimbabwe, Lesotho, and South Africa nationals—interfaced in commercial farms, especially on possible imbalances.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research was operationalised through a case study design that primarily relied upon ethnographic multiple qualitative methods of semi-structured in-depth interviews, discussions, observations, review of documents, archival data, and print, and electronic media. In addition to in-depth interviews, I also spent time immersed in farm communities especially in Robertson commercial farms in Western Cape Province, observing their behaviours, and attending community meetings and campaigns. The study intentionally selected Robertson and migrant farm workers for a narrower, systematic, and organised analysis of the new turn in violence. Robertson is well known as a hub for farm worker immigrants who are largely employed in the horticultural sector. The primary rationale for choosing the social conflict between Zimbabwean, native, and Lesotho migrants is to show how they interact to produce a new turn in violence. Much of the data came from key informants, farmworkers who were selected through purposive or convenient sampling strategies. Farmworker migrants who were chosen to provide the best perspectives included 35 Zimbabweans, 30 Lesotho nationals, and 40 South Africans. Of the total number of interviewees, 15 were women. The gender breakdown showed fewer women as farm workers compared to their male counterparts. All discussions were conducted in English. The number of members interviewed was determined by data saturation. Participants were told of their rights to participate and other ethical considerations.

The in-depth qualitative interviews established migrants’ in-depth voices, fundamental feelings, experiences of violence, knowledge of sources of conflict, and constructions of the interactive processes among migrants of different nationalities. Informants were allowed to talk about their experiences in an open-ended way based on the following themes: reasons for migration, life in South African farms, how, and why they ventured into farming jobs, challenges they faced in interacting with other nationalities, and how to find a resolve to those challenges and conflicts.

The majority of interviews were conducted in places of residence. By virtue of their violent experiences, the migrants were endowed with knowledge of the causes and drivers of conflict. Moreover, I also used deviant case sampling in order to get contrasting ideas from the migrants. I employed unstructured, open-ended interviews for the purposively selected respondents, focusing mainly on their experiences and interpretation of the conflict. The in-depth interviews undertook snowball sampling approaches given that some of the potential interviewees were hard to reach in fear of victimisation and re-traumatisation. I initially identified a few individuals of each migrant group, who then helped to locate, recruit, and eventually interview them. The in-depth qualitative interviews established migrants’ in-depth voices, fundamental feelings, experiences of violence, knowledge of sources of conflict, and constructions of...

Kaleidoscope

ILGA-Europe introduces a new program focussing on racialized LGBTQ+ communities across Europe

ILGA-Europe (https://www.ilga-europe.org) announced a new two part 12-month programme on the work being done by and for racialized LGBTQ+ communities across Europe this week. According to the international LGBTQ+ advocacy non-profit, the new initiative will be supporting up to 15 organisations’ work on socio-economic justice through a combination of grants and other resources. The programme has two interconnected components: financial support for the implementation of a project (up to 20,000 Euro per project), and, learning and networking, that will bring grantees together (on-line) on a regular basis to exchange learning, share challenges and solutions, build solidarity and find points for collaboration and inspiration.

Read more at:

https://www.losangelesblade.com/2023/02/01/ilga-europe-new-program-for-racialized-lgbtq-communities/

Luke M Herrington probes the intersectional aspects of religion, gender and political violence in American partisan politics

In his article, the author tries to trace the lack of theoretical engagement to ideological debates rooted in American partisan political discourse, particularly, the nexus of religion, gender, and political violence, demonstrating how the theoretical discontinuity between Western feminists and scholars of religious freedom undermines conceptual clarity in discussions of sacralised and sexualised violence.

Read more at:

https://www.e-ir.info/2022/11/08/probing-the-intersection-of-religion-gender-and-political-violence/

The ‘national identity’ trigger vs freedom of movement of ‘rainbow families’ across EU: the ‘Baby Sara’ case

Despite a Commission proposal to remove obstacles to LGBTQ+ families’ freedom of movement across member states, experts said such efforts are likely to continue clashing with EU countries’ ‘national identity’. Although all countries must recognise the freedom of movement and residence across the Union, as established in article 21 of the EU treaties, not all member states currently recognise parenthood established elsewhere.

The proposal came in the wake of the ‘Baby Sara’ case, where the baby of a same-sex couple from Bulgaria and Gibraltar born in Spain was left stateless after Bulgaria’s refusal to issue a birth certificate, as the country does not allow same-sex marriage conducted in the country or abroad. Although the European Court of Justice said the baby and her parents should be recognised under the right to freedom of movement, the situation continues to be stalled.

Didier Reynders, Commissioner for Justice, European Union said the new regulation will ensure the rights of maintenance and succession to all children, regardless of their family situation, while also guaranteeing parents the right to decide on medical and education issues when they move from one country to another.

Read more at:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/national-identity-likely-to-keep-clashing-with-free-movement-across-the-eu/

The politicisation of culture that led to the ‘narcissism of minor difference’: the end of progressive politics

The political vocabulary that has served Western societies in the 19th and most of the 20th century has become exhausted and has been displaced by the idiom of culture. Even disputes that were once conveyed through the rhetoric of class, social injustice or ideology tend to come alive only when communicated through the grammar of culture. When culture becomes politicised, it tends to drag the personal dimensions of everyday life into the public domain, to the point where, what one wears, what one consumes, what one reads, and so on, are often presented and interpreted as political statements.

In the literature on the Culture Wars, the conflict has been generally perceived as a split between orthodox and progressive view of morality. The wider cultural critique of capitalism is far more directed at issues that transcend the private or pre-political sphere. It targets consumerism, materialism, the work ethic, technocratic ethos and numerous enlightenment values such as individual autonomy, rationality and progress.

The politicisation of culture is directly connected to the exhaustion of ideological alternatives.

See detailed article:

https://iai.tv/articles/the-culture-war-is-killing-progress-auid-2230

UK Government proposes a ‘theory of change’ to address conflict-related-sexual-violence (CRSV)

Gender-based violence (GBV) in conflict can take many forms, including conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV). CRSV is an abuse of human rights and when perpetrated in the context of and associated with an armed conflict, is a serious violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime.

This theory of change was developed in recognition of the centrality of work in addressing CRSV to the UK’s conflict, humanitarian, development, and defence objectives. The overall intended impact is that women, men, girls, boys, and people of diverse sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, and sexual characteristics (SOGIESC) are not at risk of conflict-related sexual violence and those who survive it are able to access quality support, services, and justice.

Recognising the work to prevent and respond to CRSV is integral to meeting commitments set out in the UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (WPS).

Read more at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/preventing-sexual-violence-in-conflict-initiative-strategy/a-theory-of-change-for-addressing-conflict-related-sexual-violence#theory-of-change

Liberatory Harm Reduction with Shira Hassan

The Truthout podcast host Kelly Hayes, talks about ‘Liberatory Harm Reduction’ with Shira Hassan, author of Saving Our Own Lives.

Shira is the former Executive Director of the Young Women’s Empowerment Project, or YWEP, a grassroots project that was led by and for young people who were involved with the sex trade and street economies. Shira is a lifelong harm reductionist and prison abolitionist, and she has been involved with community accountability work for nearly 25 years. She is the founder of Just Practice, a capacity-building project for organisations and community members working at the intersection of transformative justice, harm reduction, and collective liberation.

Liberatory Harm Reduction is a philosophy and set of empowerment-based practices that teaches everyone, how to accompany each other as we transform the root causes of harm in our lives. Our values are put into action, using real life strategies to reduce the negative health, legal, and social consequences that result from criminalised and stigmatised life experiences such as drug use, sex, sex trade, sex work, surviving intimate partner violence, self-injury, eating disorders, and any other survival strategies deemed morally or socially unacceptable.

Liberatory harm reductionists support each other and their communities, without judgement, stigma, or coercion. They do not force others to change. They envision a world without racism, capitalism, patriarchy, misogyny, ableism, transphobia, policing, surveillance, and other systems of violence. Liberatory harm reduction is true self-determination and total body autonomy.

See detailed article at:

https://truthout.org/audio/we-need-harm-reduction-with-a-liberatory-vision/

Curated by Meghna Chakraborty

Book Reviews

The Trauma of Caste: A Dalit Feminist Meditation on Survivorship, Healing, and Abolition

By THENMOZHI SOUNDARARAJAN

pp.296, Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books
2022, PB/eBook
$18.95/12.99

Reviewed by

JEREMY A RINKER

It was with great excitement that I requested an advanced copy of activist and caste abolitionist Thenmozhi Soundararajan’s new book, The Trauma of Caste: A Dalit Feminist Meditation on Survivorship, Healing, and Abolition. You see, although I have long been a student of the caste system and its unique manifestations of contemporary discrimination, other than the growing genre of Dalit autobiography there have been few available writings or resources to assist Dalit activists in processing their own suffering and trauma. Soundararajan’s book is a welcome, and frankly overdue, meditation on the complex effects of caste discrimination on the ‘caste-oppressed’ (p.81). The book provides anti-caste activists with concrete ways to ‘get in touch with [their] caste grief’ (p.209) and articulates ‘lessons that are urgently needed’ (p.3) to heal and build on the existing resiliencies of both privileged and oppressed peoples. The Trauma of Caste is an important and pragmatic articulation of the horrors of caste, the caste system’s long-term effects on marginalised bodies, as well as trauma’s effects on dominant Brahminical society and culture. This book should be required reading for anyone who interacts with South Asians and hopes to do so in a trauma-informed way. To heal the caste wound left open for generations, such vulnerability and truth-telling is desperately needed. As Soundararajan explains, The Trauma of Caste is for both caste-oppressed and caste-privileged, but it is also ‘intended for diverse audiences inside and outside the South Asian community’ (p.xxiii). As a white-bodied and advantaged American male, I can attest there is much for powerful and privileged Americans to learn from this unique book. After reading The Trauma of Caste I remain excited for the activist and academic potentials it opens for healing and change.

Over the last five years I have increasingly become aware and written about (see Rinker & Lawler, 2018; Rinker & Lawler, 2020; and Rinker, 2022) the fact that my chosen field of study, Peace and Conflict Studies, has neglected the full impacts of emotions and trauma in analysing and attempting to transform protracted social conflict. This neglect of trauma is especially apparent in conflicts involving hierarchical systems, power asymmetry, and long histories of marginalisation. Caste is probably the penultimate example of such a system of graded hierarchical marginalisation and oppression. Soundararajan’s work nicely compliments and resources the works of psychologists like Eduardo and Bonnie Duran (1995), Resmaa Menakem (2017), and Bessel van der Kolk (2014) who developed deep articulations and insights into the ‘soul wound’ (Duran & Duran, 1995) experienced and internalised by marginalised identities due to the postcolonial and racialized trauma of oppression. This book fits well with these important works and comes directly from the author’s positionality as a ‘survivor of gender-based violence and police violence, as well as a survivor of the caste system, which means I [Thenmozhi] am a survivor of spiritual violence’ (p.140). Acknowledging and engaging with this marginalised psychology from below provides important and often overlooked insights into the ways of knowing of Dalits, which, like all marginal identities, the discipline of psychology has traditionally neglected and/or silenced. Thenmozhi’s personal and vulnerable writing humanises the experience of Dalits in a unique way that only Dalit autobiographies, like for example Valmiki’s Joothan (2003), have been able to convey to those who have not had the personal experience of such hatred and dehumanisation. Still, there is something about Thenmozhi’s syntax and reflexive prose that takes this introspective analysis of the trauma of caste further than prior accounts of suffering have. Indeed, her personal discussion of the ‘epistemic injustice’ (p.43) that Dalits regularly face in institutions of higher learning lays bare the need for caste-based protections in all range of social institutions. Her work is at once academic and activist oriented––not an easy feat in the bifurcated contemporary world of either activist or academic publishing.

But this book does not simply look backwards or complain about the current injustices that modern day Dalits face, it also looks forward towards a more egalitarian future. Not forgetting the ancestors, upon whose shoulders she stands, Thenmozhi imagines a ‘Dalit feminist mettaverse’ (p.144) in which ‘we [collectively] must imagine beyond ourselves and our socialization’ (p.144). This powerful play on words invokes an anti-corporate vision of a new reality that is not of the technical worlds of augmented and virtual reality, or social media vanity, but rather based in trust, compassion, and love. Such a mettaverse would ensure social protection and voice for all without fear of exploitation or further trauma; it would allow space and structures to ‘acknowledge caste apartheid’ and ‘remember people for their potential, not just [their] loss’ (p.108). Thenmozhi’s unique book at once remembers and memorialises past anti-caste movement leaders and imagines a new way to organise and heal from the past collective trauma of millennia of caste oppression.

While Thenmozhi’s book is exiting and innovative, the flow does at times painstakingly struggle to clarify and socially position its intended audience. This is not helped by the author’s use of polemical terms like genocide to describe caste apartheid as she makes the case for the equation ‘caste is trauma’ (p.18). While I agree with the author’s sentiment that ‘Genocide is a process. Genocide has stages’ (p.127), calling it a caste genocide stretches the international definition of genocide and complicates the mobilisation response of anti-caste allies. Admittedly, writing such a personal meditation must be extremely difficult from both an intellectual and emotional perspective, and one can sense the tension that Thenmozhi faces between wanting to write a love letter to her Dalit colleagues, ancestors, and allies and simultaneously needing to speak directly to caste-dominant oppressors. This jumping between audiences takes some skill and grace on the part of both the author and the reader. Thenmozhi navigates this with grace and a steady hand, but some readers might feel this navigation a bit disjointed. While this minor critique at times hampers the flow of the text, it does not take away from the import or impact of Thenmozhi’s critical work. Citing Peter Levine, Thenmozhi astutely reminds us that: ‘Trauma is not what happens to us, but what we hold inside in the absence of empathetic witness’ (p.19; endnote number 10). Her empathetic witness is not only overdue, but both sage and impactful.

Overall, The Trauma of Caste, is destined to be a classic text in Dalit and diaspora studies circles. Future researchers, as well as activists in movements focused on abolition practices, will find it hard to overlook the important connections that Thenmozhi has outlined for us between trauma, caste apartheid, and other intersectional global identities. This book is a comprehensive meditation on the trials of being an outcaste from the dominant hierarchies of caste, gender, race, and national origin––none of which can be entirely separated from one another. In stressing the intersectional identities of caste, class, gender, religious and national identities, Thenmozhi makes important contributions to the current contentious authoritarian moment in world history. If you are a student of peace potentials and human flourishing, I urge you to pick up this important book. While recent books like Isabel Wilkerson’s Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents has raised interest in American readers about the connections between race and caste, this book, written from the activist as opposed to journalistic lens, provides texture and nuance to the collective historical traumas experienced by South Asia’s Dalit community. Like Wilkerson was able to do in her Pulitzer Prize winning The Warmth of Other Suns, this book opens a personal window into what hierarchies of oppression do to individuals and communities. Thenmozhi Soundararajan’s The Trauma of Caste deserves a close reading and calls us to apply and heal from its practical meditations as well as easily applied somatic exercises found in the appendix. In the words often spoken by Dalit leader Dr B R Ambedkar, the book will help us all heal as we simultaneously ‘Organize, educate, agitate!’

WORKS CITED

Duran, Eduardo & Duran, Bonnie, Native American Postcolonial Psychology, Albany: SUNY Press, 1995

Levine, Peter, In an Unspoken Voice: How the Body Releases Trauma and Restores Goodness, Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 2010

Menakem, Resmaa, My Grandmother’s Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and Bodies, Las Vegas: Century Recovery Press, 2017

Moon, Vasant (ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches (BAWS) (Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, India, 1987

Rinker, Jeremy A, ‘Collective Historical Trauma and Retelling the Past: Towards Trauma-Informed Transitional Justice Praxis’ in Cox, John, Khoury, Amal, Minslow, Sarah (eds.), Denial: The Final Stage of Genocide?, New York: Routledge, 2022

Rinker, Jeremy A & Lawler, Jerry (eds.), Realizing Nonviolent Resistance: Neoliberalism, Societal Trauma, and Marginalized Voice, New York: Peter Lang Publishers, 2020

Rinker, Jeremy A & Lawler, Jerry, ‘Trauma as a Collective Disease and Root Cause of Protracted Social Conflict’, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2018, pp.150-64

Valmiki, Omprakash, Joothan: An Untouchable’s Life, New York: Columbia University Press, 2003

van der Kolk, Bessel, The Body Keeps Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma, New York: Penguin Books, 2014

Wilkerson, Isabel, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, New York: Random House, 2020

Wilkerson, Isabel, The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration, New York: Vintage Books, 2010

Pathways of Reconciliation: Indigenous and Settler Approaches to Implementing the TRC’s Calls to Action

Edited by AIMÉE CRAFT & PAULETTE REGAN

pp.344, University of Manitoba Press
2020, HB/PB/eBook
$70.00/16.64/15.81

Reviewed by

ELEYAN SAWAFTA

Indigenous studies have recently become confined between two traditional discourses of reconciliation, ‘where settler colonialism has been defeated’, such as Africa, and ‘where settler colonialism triumphed’, such as America (Mamdani, 2015). However, settler colonialism is not an event of defeat or victory, it is an issue of historical injustice that became intragenerational. Also, a particular kind of settler colonialism is still experienced and takes unique forms, such as the case of the Zionist movement in Palestine. Notably, the question is how justice, forgiveness, grievance, and freedom could be achieved considering oppression regardless if the settler colonialism was defeated, triumphed, or still active.

From a procedural point of view, some scholars/practitioners pay serious attention to the role of ‘political apology’ in the future of reconciliation, considering apology as a ‘moral awakening’ for humanity. Others argue that ‘material reparations’ or ‘truth-telling’ is one of the main measures to achieve justice for indigenous people who have struggled through various stages of killing, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and elimination. Systematically, Indigenous Studies have been led either by the indigenous people themselves, or human rights advocates. However, Pathways of Reconciliation is distinctive and quite different, as the authors attempt to rally around the idea of reconciliation as a process rather than just a goal/result of an event. The authors in this edited volume argue that any sustainable solution should be related to a historical study of colonialism’s roots. Also, the authors offer us an indigenous and settler approach to implementing specific TRC’s calls to action. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) defines reconciliation as ‘an ongoing process of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships’ (p.82).

While I was reviewing this book, I was reminded of Patrick Wolfe’s (2006) ground-breaking theory of the ‘logic of elimination’. I found Wolfe’s material very helpful to my review, he argues that settler colonialism is ‘a structure, not an event’. Settler colonialism seeks to control the indigenous people materially and morally through a mixture of tools of hegemony in its Gramscian meaning, especially considering the ‘cultural hegemony’ in the colonised territories (Lears, 1985). Therefore, the indigenous people lose control over the land, labour, and all tools of survival and sustainability. Veracini (2013) emphasised that settler colonialism ‘perpetuates the erasure of indigenous peoples as a precondition for the settlers’ expropriation of land and resources, thus providing the necessary conditions for the foundation of the current ideology of multicultural neoliberalism’.

Building upon the above, considering settler colonialism as a structure, its opposite thus must be structural. This is the essence of the book, to examine the role of structural socio-political change in hindering the reconciliation of indigenous people and settlers. The book provides brilliant applicable answers on how we could get, collaboratively, behind symbolic reforms or even rhetorical practices. The book puts us on a concrete ground to achieve together ‘meaningful reconciliation’ through mutual pathways called ‘pathways of reconciliation’.

The thematic classification of the book’s content is smooth. The book is divided into four parts; all the parts provide divergent perspectives on how we could understand the reconciliation in the context of settler colonialism. The book’s argument could be abstracted in three words: ‘restoration’, ‘self-determining’, and ‘equal partners’. In other words, the authors distinguished between land acknowledgments and restoration; they claimed that restoration means ‘return the stolen lands’ (p.103). At this point, I quite agree with the book’s argument, I also mention that many scholars focus on this point, for example, indigenous anthropologists from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill wrote that ‘land acknowledgments have been used to start conversations regarding how non-Indigenous people can support Indigenous sovereignty and advocate for land repatriation’ (Sobo et al, 2021). As a Palestinian scholar, I have always believed that land-based struggle is connected to self-determination; the book’s authors were specific when they mentioned the right of the indigenous people to self-determination. To put it another way, it is hard to imagine development for the indigenous communities without having the right to access their resources. Thus, restoration and self-determination could create a good political and social environment to accept others and live together.

In Canada, Craft and Regan demonstrate how much two conflicting reconciliation perspectives are dominated in the field of indigenous studies: crown perspective and indigenous understanding. The two perspectives are different in terms of the practical tools and the theoretical frameworks that they use to achieve reconciliation. The authors wonder if the indigenous people should reject the whole non-indigenous/Canadian society. Or should the non-indigenous society keep colonising the indigenous people symbolically and materially? All questions—which are generated, as Franz Fanon (1961) believes, from the nature of the hierarchical relations between oppressor and oppressed—make us evaluate and sometimes revoke the theoretical meaning of the reconciliation. In doing so, the first part of the book discusses reframing and different perspectives for indigenous and Canadian.

In chapter one, MacDonald critically reviews liberal multiculturalism and civil rights; he suggests that transformative reconciliation offers justice not only in abstract assimilation. He questions, ‘how settlers have tried to make reconciliation comfortable’, then he answers, ‘by framing it as something familiar and non-threatening, in much the same way they have sought to use multiculturalism as a means of promoting assimilation’ (p.7). I agree that MacDonald uncovers the ad-hoc definition of ‘settlers’ and critiques the narrative of individual rights. He says, ‘most settlers are comfortable with Western liberal principles of quality’ (p.7). He argues that individualism in reconciliation is a very Western reconciliation approach, and it is a result of the European social contract theory that gave the government/state coercive power to control the public or specific classes of the public. I fully endorse his conclusion; I argue that individual equality fails in recognising the structural differences between marginalised indigenous communities and denominated non-indigenous societies. MacDonald questions whether the individual approach could provide a ‘nation-to-nation relationship?’ 

In the discussion of the ‘nation-to-nation relationship’, I argue that re(producing) power relations within the framework of ensuring the foundations of justice and self-determination is the most appropriate solution to erase the differences, that Patrick Wolfe (2006) articulated, between the master and the slave. In doing so, in chapter two, Uwibereyeho and Maiangwa propose community-level initiatives ‘to restore community relationships’ (p.43). I am of two minds about their claim that community interventions, such as Gacaca in post-genocide Rwanda and ‘TRCs’, can rebuild relationships of ‘nation-to-nation’. On the one hand, I agree that community interventions focus on community and restorative justice. On the other hand, I am not sure if those initiatives/interventions are measurable or not, or how we could evaluate and monitor those interventions. Also, there is a dangerous idea that some of those initiatives could be used to manage conflicts more than resolving them.

The ‘meaningful reconciliation’ needs to be measured and monitored not only for research contribution or experimental goals. However, I observe that it needs to be measured and monitored to improve and judge the reconciliation process. As many initiatives, TRC could be limited, and ‘it could conceivably accomplish’ (p.58) limited results. In a comparison study between radical reconciliations (the case of South Africa), rhetorical reconciliation (the case of the Canadian state) and relational reconciliation (the case of Canadian TRC), O’Neil concluded that without any institutional restitutions, the Canadian reconciliation ‘will remain a rhetorical exercise in the service of the colonialism’ (p.81). I believe that O’Neil’s suggestion of institutional restitution is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of slight governmental adjustments.

To put it another way, the reconciliation process, in the Canadian context, should go in parallel with the key indicators such as healthcare, education quality etc. These parameters are rooted in structural and institutional change. George, in chapter four, offers critiques of the child welfare system. George tends to believe that justice and freedom for child welfare and families need that kind of change. She quotes Franz Fanon and says:

Colonialism has not merely held a people in its grip. It seeks to assert its power and control in all aspects. It does so, by a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of the oppressed people, and distorts disfigures, and destroys it (p.92).

Ultimately, what is at stake here is that social control and political domination become an unrivalled system of control over the indigenous population.

If we understand reconciliation as a process with a precondition of social/political change, this makes it associated with learning and discovering new tools for intervention, this is the essence of the second part of this book. The first reframing part of the book gave us a sense of where we are, and where are we going; however, this part answers the question of how we can move on. This part is an argument that learning, and teaching are crucial tools to crystallise a ‘collective conscience’ agreed on the principles of justice and equality. I cannot discuss the ‘collective conscience’ without referring to Émile Durkheim. Durkheim (1893) addressed the ‘collective conscience’ as a common moral bond between people. My feelings are mixed on the issue; I do support Durkheim’s positions about the importance of the ‘collective conscience’, but I question how the ‘common moral bond between people’ could be created in the shadow of the structure of colonialism. 

Erica Jurgens, as an indigenous scholar, presented her personal experience and claimed that teaching truth before reconciliation is a way to re(build) a conscience that could guarantee healing. She highlights her approach, what she calls ‘a three part-line of reasoning’ to achieve reconciliation by correcting the history, mentioning the truth, ‘re(righting) the nation-to-nation relationship’, and ‘re(write) the settler colonial historiography’ (p.123). Although I agree with Jurgens up to a point, I struggle in systematically accepting the overall conclusion that ‘collective conscience’ and truth must precede reconciliation, the relationship between ‘collective conscience’ and reconciliation was not clear enough for me.

Zurba and Sinclair mentioned collaborative approaches using ‘post-conflict pedagogy’ to highlight some points related to the reconciliation processes in North-western Ontario. They highlighted a conceptual framework called ‘structural reconciliation’. They said that structural reconciliation ‘occurs within established institutions resulting in structural changes that promote equity and relationship building between indigenous and non-indigenous people’ (p.147). Although I fully endorse the link between learning and reconciliation to enhance the reconciliation, I disagree with much that Zurba and Sinclair say that reconciliation could not be confined ‘without further devolution of authority and/or state power’ (p.165). I suggest that the authors need to highlight what kind of structural change they talk about. Is it radical/revolution change, or nonviolent reform? Is it bottom-up change, or policy level and up-bottom change? Does this change need negotiation with the government, as Gene Sharp (2012) did not suggest, or does it need social movement? I believe that all these questions are important to adopt specific tools rather than continuing to circle the rhetorical practice.

In the third part, the authors attempt to offer new information that could help the reconciliation. Rocke and King’s case study in Manitoba checks what reconciliation means amongst newcomers to Canada. While Rocke and King, in chapter seven, focus on the youth and youth-led initiatives, Carr and Chartier seek to provide a visualisation of how survivors and elders could heal. Carr and Chartier critiqued the health system considering Galtung’s ideas about institutional violence and the need for structural changes. Because I agree that the violence in Canada is institutional, I only see the change as a very long-term process, and it could not offer absolute justice for the indigenous people. It is not a straightforward process as some pieces in the book articulate, but it is not impossible either. The change should start with a holistic approach to touch on the structure of the education, health, and economic systems. The change should re(distribute) the wealth and go in parallel with other actions such as ‘apology repetition’ (Bush, 2020).

In the last part, Bush bent the prevailing wind by highlighting the ‘apology repetition’. He said, ‘apology repetition helps create a culture where reconciliation is an accepted way of life’ (p.217). I agree with Bush when he mentioned the role of churches in apology, and the impact of repetition on those apologising and those hearing the words. He said that apology makes the society walk and live their life together by restoring their relationships. ‘Apology repetition’ could prevent the continuing to replicate the colonial structure of assimilation and cultural genocide. We should pay serious attention that the main role of the apology is not to normalise the status quo, but to tell the truth. This is what Clarke illustrated in the tenth chapter when she said, ‘first nations societies had multiple ways of ensuring the safety and well-being of children and families in accordance with their own unique cultures’ (p.227). She said that first nations societies ‘living within the contradiction’ until they can transform the structures (p.243).

I acknowledge that it is hard to live within the contradiction. I live in a war zone in Palestine, and the political elites keep discussing peace in their meetings. However, talking about non-radical subjects need collaboration between different parties and most importantly educational institutions. In her chapter related to stories of survivors, Walsh mentioned that ‘the repatriation—in the Indian residential schools—was a collaborative effort between the University of Victoria and Alberni Indian Residential School survivors’ (pp.261-62). She says that kind of collaboration could help in re(building) the relations between indigenous and non-indigenous people.

Overall, this is a very rich book, with creative new ideas in the field of indigenous studies. This book would be great for students, scholars, practitioners, and anyone who wants to be involved in reconciliation processes. I highly recommended this book to any scholar or/and conflict practitioner who wants to contribute more to peace and conflict studies, especially as they relate to settler colonialism and indigenous studies.

REFERENCES

Durkheim, Émile [1893], ‘The Division of Labour in Society’ in Thompson, K (ed.), Readings from Emile Durkheim, 2/e, New York: Routledge, 2004, pp.19-38

Fanon, F et al, The Wretched of the Earth [1961], (Philcox, R Trans.), (60th anniversary), New York: Grove Press, 2004

Lears, Jackson T J, ‘The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities’, The American Historical Review, Vol. 90, No. 3, 1985, pp.567–93, DoI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1860957

Mamdani, M, ‘Settler Colonialism: Then and Now’, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2015, p.596

Sharp, Gene, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, New York: New Press, 2012

Sobo, E et al, Land Acknowledgments Are Not Enough, 20 October 2021, retrieved from https://www.sapiens.org/culture/land-acknowledgments-soverignty/ on 3 January 2022

Veracini, Lorenzo, ‘“Settler Colonialism”: Career of a Concept’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2013, pp.313-33, DoI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2013.768099

Wolfe, Patrick, ‘Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native’, Journal of Genocide Research, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2006, pp.387-409

Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis

https://jtpp.uk

In association with

Peace and Justice Studies Association

https://www.peacejusticestudies.org