Engaging Conflict: Grapes, Leaves, and Lessons Learned

The purpose of today’s blog is to bring a piece of writing and reflection, initially intended for learning about conflict analysis, to spaces where conflicts possibly get solved. I have wondered about this silent disconnected space between intellectual ideas and the real-world crudity of conflicts, more than a few times. Even in the scenario of becoming the best possible writer hundred years later, I wonder what’s the use if none of this will ever translate to actual change. Therefore, I’ll begin with a territorial zone with which I share no particular identity or experience, even in the form of travel.   Fortunately, a movie was made about this eternal conflict depicting a dialogue and facilitation process that was inspiring and gave some hope for how considerate and courageous human contact can shift perspectives or at least make them clear, even if disagreements persist.

When we see people, we see lives. When we just see land, we tend to only see lines.

As part of one of my courses in the Carter School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, I got to watch the movie Two Sided Story. The movie follows two groups, Israelis and Palestinians, engaging together in a dialogue that aligns well with the principles of restorative justice.  As described by one source, the movie captures a dialogue between “bereaved families, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims, settlers, ex-soldiers in the Israeli army, ex security prisoners, citizens of the Gaza strip, kibbutz members, second generation holocaust survivors, and non-violent activists.”¹ The dialogue was aimed at increasing awareness about the narrative of the other side. When stories from both sides are considered, an overall impact on entire interconnected communities gets revealed. Common stories of loss emerge (e.g., stories of Amna and Ora, Tamer and Ohad).

One scene from the movie that helps capture the essence of this dialogue is when two women, one Israeli and one Palestinian, are conversing in a garden while collecting grape leaves. For me, it stood as a metaphor for restorative justice in which the carefully collected stacks of leaves symbolized collected stories, in the backdrop of a beautiful day, visible in the background.

The initial phases of interaction in such a conflict are bound to taste like sour grapes, particularly if facilitation and resolution justice of any kind is rushed. However, as is true for grapes, over time, there can be hope for better flavor and cheer. The leaves, to me, signify stories – the collection of the stories of harm. Such collection of leaves, partly made possible by the subtle but significant efforts of the facilitator, can enable transformation and healing on both sides.

During the dialogue covered in the movie, one of the participants introduced humor to diffuse some tension by sharing a piece of light-hearted wisdom called The Land Story, which goes something like this: A piece of land was asked, “Which side do you belong to?”, to which the land replied, “I don’t belong to either one of you. You belong to me.”

Territorial resolutions are a vital form of defense, no doubt. However, the meaning of identity is damaged and lost when only land is seen as symbolic of people rather than people being considered as caretakers of land. Land was there even millions of years ago while people came later to inhabit land. Therefore, it makes little sense when mortal people, with limited lives, live and die over a space that they should ideally take care of in a fair-minded cooperative way. Relationships keep identity intact and with identities forged based on common goals and human priorities, spaces blossom as they should in an ideal world, in which people are given the chance to live normally, a condition sought by all faiths.

Restorative justice offers a revised way of looking at wrongdoing. Instead of a punitive focus, it addresses harm as a shared experience of wrongdoing (Zehr, 2009).  In the pretext of intractable conflict, such as the one between Israel and Palestine, more humanized forms of justice and conflict resolution are bound to make better sense, compared to a ‘who-did-what’ approach of punitive justice. Most such conflicts remain entangled in religious assumptions of true and less true intergenerational stories and completely miss the acknowledgement of the harm shared as a constant open wound. I wouldn’t be surprised if a facilitator found amidst one of these dialogues is bound to find comparable stories of emotional harm, simply wrapped in two different covers.  

Practice with Listening and Perspective Taking

The course I took, in one of the meetings, began with an exercise on listening. After sharing some of our general life stories and personal experience, we were surprised by the following prompt, “Now tell the story of your peer while assuming their role.” To me, this was both refreshing and a bit difficult. Refreshing because for a moment I didn’t have to be myself. I was reporting someone else’s experience which meant stepping out from my zone of self-relevant thought. The exercise was slightly difficult because I realized my usual focus on just facts and information, a limitation I tried to overcome in similar exercises later. Now I listen for stories, intent, and experiences as well.

Another exercise that helped me recognize the utility of understanding different points of view was the debate activity. In the activity, I landed up in a team that had to strongly defend the Confederate flag and then midway switch to debate against it, which was an out-of-body experience. I was a bit apprehensive about going further with this exercise because of my previous understanding of studies on attitude change. In social psychology, there are several experiments, based on the principle of cognitive dissonance, in which publicly expressing a view contrary to your original one can potentially shift your attitude. It is called counter attitudinal advocacy (Aronson & Aronson, 2018). Of course, several other factors matter such as previously held strong attitudes, presence or absence of an easy to influence audience, and so forth, but I was concerned about possible attitude shift in the wrong direction. Eventually, I mainly gained better perspective and an understanding of both views.

In conflict resolution and facilitation scenarios, most people are somewhere worried about this possibility of beginning to actually understand the other side and then wonder what that may do to their original identities based on old ideas. One solution is perceiving dialogues as revised new information making you more updated rather than considering yourself unpatriotic or a traitor who dared to consider another view which wasn't even deemed worth hearing at one time.

Below are some of the lessons that can enable better engagement in conflict facilitations.

Listening skills: During most conversations, people are usually preoccupied with being heard. In the moment, many of us feel how not expressing our words will demolish the purpose of coming to a conversation or a dialogue. Listening is what enables progress in conversation and dialogue. If each word uttered was considered a piece of Lego, enabling listening is essentially helping the other person finish putting their pieces of Lego. Only then any of your pieces might be able to make better sense and add to the final structure.

Building trust: During an activity in the movie Two Sided Story, one participant from each side had to walk a participant from the other side out in the open for a conversation. However, there was one condition. The one being walked out to the location of paired conversation needed to have blindfolds on and rely closely on their conversation partner’s directions. I found this activity to have good potential for building trust among participants. Trust building is central not only when it comes to the facilitator’s role in a dialogue but also in how it creates the conditions for such trust to eventually sprout between the parties involved.

Harnessing the potential of sensitive moments: Balancing creative ideas of facilitation with the recognition of significant conversations within a dialogue is critical. One dilemma I wondered about is how to not leave imprints of too much personal suggestion and influence as a facilitator when surrounded by sensitive issues. A dialogue, eventually, is for the parties involved. I first wondered about this in my own previous teaching experience. Be it facilitation, teaching, or counseling, timely recognition of sensitive moments matters. Sensitive moments happen when something is said that fulfills the entire purpose of the gathering, which is why it is much more precious than a planned exercise.  Sometimes these are also situations in which pain and tears of people are brought into light, affirming the trustworthy conditions created by the facilitator, akin to how a surgeon is trusted with guts, lungs, and heart on an operating table.  Shifting strategies too soon or strongly, without being engaged and sensitive, just to apply new creative conflict resolution methodologies can prove to be harmful. Such moments are not fit for reiterating definitions, guidelines, or concepts. These are moments of empathetic listening and occasional interjection to enable a deeper understanding. 

Diversity matters when facilitating certain topics: Our team project at the time of taking this course involved facilitating an interfaith dialogue titled ‘Countering Hate in Our Communities’ which is a significant but a sensitive topic. For me the success of any dialogue hinges on the conditions created. Fortunately, I have a few years of experience teaching prejudice and biases as part of social psychology, which generally aids in such settings. I have been told by peers and colleagues before how the particular demographic of the instructor tends to matter when handling such topics and it was usually said as a compliment. For example, a white male colleague may tell you how it is at times daunting for them to address topics on diversity. No matter how good their intention might be in a classroom, some dark moment of discomfort can always show up. I can see how that might be countered in both teaching and facilitation. Pairing up with individuals from different ethnic and racial backgrounds usually helps, regardless of whether you have a well-traveled or a less informed audience.  One demographic can legitimize the intent of the other. Therefore, having a group of facilitators from diverse backgrounds ease any potential discomfort and can make such dialogues seamlessly meaningful and inclusive for everyone.

References

Aronson, E., & Aronson, J. (2018). The social animal (12th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Zehr, H. (2009). The intersection of restorative justice with trauma healing, conflict transformation and peacebuilding. Journal for Peace and Justice Studies, 18(1), 20–30.

Endnotes

1. Two Sided Story (The documentary available with a password.)

(Note. Again, the blog is an adapted version of an essay initially written by Anjali Mishra in 2020 for CONF 625 as part of a MS course in Conflict Analysis and Resolution from the Carter School, Arlington, Virginia, USA.)