Israeli Identity, Thick Recognition and Conflict Transformation

L. Strombom

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781349453597, 9781137301505
• eBook ISBN: 9781137301512
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The divisive and malleable nature of history is at its most palpable in situations of intractable conflict between nations or peoples. This book explores the significance of history in informing the relationship between warring parties through the concept of thick recognition and by exploring its relevance specifically in relation to Israel.

Part I

Introduction

1

Introduction

Israeli identity, history and thick recognition

Memories of 1948

The Israeli debates over interpretations of the 1948 war, often called the debates over New History,¹ are the main object of analysis in this study. These debates focused on how to interpret the Israeli War of Independence in 1948, or as the Palestinians call it, “al-Naqba” (meaning “the catastrophe”). The debates touched on fundamentals of Israeli identity as well as the genesis of the State of Israel. They were immensely important, as understandings of conflict and feelings of identity in the present are largely shaped by interpretations of events in the past.

The introduction of New History in the Israeli public sphere led to widespread controversy. After vigorous debates, in academia as well as in the public domain, new textbooks inspired by New History were introduced in Israeli schools. Following the broadcast of a widely viewed television documentary dealing with Israeli history during and after the war of 1948, the tone of the debates became more ferocious. In the late 1990s, influential politicians in the Knesset, together with other vocal actors, participated in the promotion of ideas that contributed to political decisions inhibiting further institutionalization of New History. The initial success of New History was thus reversed as the political establishment as well as a large part of the Israeli public opposed the public dissemination of the ideas inherent in the material.

The debates on the war of 1948 touched on fundamentals concerning Israeli national identity, which is at the heart of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Those debates, which initially concerned history, later on came to the forefront as media and politicians became involved in intense arguments with potent political content:

The angry reaction by many Israeli intellectuals and the rejection of the new historians’ narrative by wide sections of the Israeli public, especially among veterans of the 1948 war, indicated that these revisions had touched a raw nerve in the Israeli consciousness. In fact, the ongoing heated debate was not just an academic controversy. It was a cultural struggle over identities and self-perceptions, with deep political overtones. One keen observer noted that the sharp opposition and deep concerns these researchers have aroused […] resulted from a perception that they endanger the boundaries of the current [Israeli] identity and are seen as a threat to Israelis’ self-image.

(Bar-On, 2006:155)

This study emphasizes the transformative potential inherent in the debates over Israeli New History, and argues that they were closely related to identities and relationships in conflict. As New History first experienced success and showed signs of taking root in official institutions, and then waned and was removed from institutions, it serves as an interesting case where circumstances that inhibit, as well as facilitate, the introduction of changed understandings of history in conflict settings can be explored.

Aim and outline of the book

This book emphasizes the potential for conflict transformation through reformulations of history. Identities in intractable conflicts (Azar, 1991) are its main focus.² One common feature of these conflicts is that they tend to be protracted and violent, with deep-rooted animosity and prejudice between the groups involved. They are also known for being highly resistant to traditional negotiation and mediation efforts (Rouhana and Bar-Tal, 1998:761–762).

The over-arching aim of this study is to develop an understanding of the recognition concept so that it can assist in furthering our knowledge of the peaceful transformation of intractable conflicts. I develop the concept of thick recognition, which pinpoints the transformative potential of changed historical accounts in conflictual relations. I inquire into a case of seemingly static conflict, and propose that the deadlock might be broken, if notions of thick recognition could be introduced. The main argument is that recognition of crucial identity elements – such as widely shared understandings of history – might increase the potential for relationship transformation in intractable conflicts. The Israeli case highlights the central element of understandings of history in intractable conflicts. It also provides deeper knowledge regarding the intrasocietal processes involved when novel understandings of history and identity are introduced in conflict-ridden societies.

This chapter constitutes Part I of the study, in which introductory information regarding the subject, the book’s over-arching aim and methodological issues are presented. It also introduces the reader to the state of the art when it comes to research on Israeli history and identities related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Part II consists of Chapters 2 and 3. There I carve out the theoretical notions that will later be used in the empirical analysis. Chapter 2 introduces the main fields of recognition and conflict transformation. The reader is introduced to two dimensions of the recognition concept: thick and thin recognition. Thick recognition is the main theoretical advancement here, and refers to understandings of the other’s fundamental features of identity. This in turn is related to the concept of conflict transformation. Here the processual qualities of that concept is underlined, contributing to an understanding of conflicts as undergoing constant transformation, even though at times they might appear as static. Thick recognition is theoretically linked to the process of conflict transformation. This is a necessary step as the analysis in the third part of the book probes the Israeli history debates in terms of thick recognition and relates them to processes of conflict transformation during the most formative years of the Oslo peace process.

Chapter 3 advances ideas regarding identity change in intractable conflicts. It further develops the concept of thick recognition, and connects transformed understandings of identity to processes of conflict transformation. Here the notion of core constructs is presented; this allows for an understanding of identity construction, which in turn highlights the malleability of collective identity construction, as well as the common tendency for identities involved in conflict situations to go through psychological processes which makes them appear very static. The thick recognition concept is introduced as a key to the introduction of more diversified identities, which could ease relations between former enemies. As core constructs tend to be stabilized in the social interactions brought about by intractable conflicts, it is clear that it might be difficult to alter relationships between the adversaries. However, it is shown that when narratives of thick recognition are introduced – under certain circumstances – those stabilized boundaries might be altered. The chapter ends with a discussion on the relationship between understandings of history, identity and conflict. Here, I build an argument showing why it is crucial to link changes in historical understandings to the transformation of conflicts.

Part III consists of the empirical analyses in Chapters 4 to 7. Chapter 4 is the first to address the empirical case. It introduces the Israeli commemorative narratives at the center of the debates over New History. Here the traditional Israeli understandings of the war of 1948 are analyzed according to the previously carved out elements inherent in thick recognition. Their respective views on identity, difference and boundaries are thus scrutinized. The master narratives of Zionism and conflict are also introduced and assessed in terms of recognition. The chapter concludes that the Israeli master commemorative narratives seem to draw clear boundaries between Israelis and Palestinians in their descriptions of the history of both nations. There is hence little to no room for recognition of Palestinians in either the master commemorative narratives or the master narratives of Zionism and conflict which are assessed in this chapter.

Chapter 5 conducts an analysis similar to that in Chapter 4. Here the focus is on constructions of identity in the counter commemorative narratives, as well as in the counter narratives of Zionism and conflict. It thus introduces the reader to the actors promoting New History, as well as the content inherent in their historical understandings. It is shown that the counter commemorative narratives of New History brought thick recognition into the narrative constellation of Israeli society, forming a forceful challenge to the identities and understandings of conflict inherent in traditional Israeli understandings of history. The chapter clearly shows that elements of thin as well as thick recognition were partly inherent in the counter narratives of Zionism and conflict which flourished during the same time period.

Chapters 6 and 7 analyze the debates over New History. They introduce the reader to the fierce debates regarding historical interpretation that went on in Israel during much of the 1990s. It was played out between different memory agents who tried to promote their views of history in academic as well as in more public forums such as educational text books, and visual as well as written media. The chapters assess the interplay between gatekeepers and challengers in their struggles to influence Israeli collective memory. It is made evident that a vital part of the interplay between different memory agents concerned influence over institutions communicating history to the public, such as media and education.

Chapter 6 covers the first debate cycle, in which New History was introduced and started to take root. The analysis addresses circumstances facilitating as well as inhibiting the introduction of narratives of New History into Israeli society in terms of recognition openings and recognition closures. During this debate cycle a recognition opening is discerned. Chapter 7 is concerned with the second debate cycle, in which New History experienced decline. It is obvious that in the fight against New History, academics, journalists and politicians tried to portray the sometimes post-positivist, post-nationalist and most of all boundary-provoking message inherent in New History as a threat to the unity of the Israeli nation, and sometimes also as a lethal threat to the existence of the state. The gatekeepers thus experienced success in their efforts with the result that the counter narratives of New History were erased from Israeli official memory institutions. This is interpreted in terms of recognition closures.

In Part IV (Chapter 8), I present the conclusions that can be drawn from the study. The study’s theoretical advancement, together with its empirical analysis, has left three major imprints. (1) A processual approach has helped to fine-tune the understanding of how narratives of thick as well as thin recognition interplay with the development of conflict. (2) The analysis has accentuated the role and importance of actors within conflicted societies as they have the potential to question governing assumptions of identities and relationships in conflict. These actors, in our case historians, politicians and civil servants working in education policy, for example, hence have the potential to influence identities in conflict through the introduction of narratives of thick recognition. (3) The analysis also contributes to a deeper understanding regarding the processes of recognition openings or recognition closures in intractable conflicts. Taken together this enhances understandings of how conflicts can transform toward and away from peaceful outcomes. Lastly, the book discusses current developments in Israeli society, and points to forceful recognition closures when it comes to nationalism, historiography and conflict.

Why recognition?

The concept of recognition has recently attracted renewed attention among international theorists who have developed the concept in shared concerns about the pivotal role of misrecognition as a generator of conflicts. The notion of recognition has a long philosophical tradition. The main source for philosophical inquiries into the concept is most often Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (1978), which has served as inspiration to later political theorists who have expanded on the concept. The most influential of these are Axel Honneth (1995) and Charles Taylor (1994), who have both contributed contemporary insights on the recognition concept based on Hegel’s philosophy, in turn sparking theoretical development in several fields of inquiry. This research has subsequently been employed in the fields of international as well as conflict theory. However, in my view there are two significant lacunae within this literature when applied to the international domain, considered in this study. Firstly, contemporary developments on the topic of recognition seem to work with quite a narrow definition of the concept, mainly connecting it to interstate dynamics (Strömbom, 2012). Fabry (2010) and Reus-Smit (2011) address recognition mainly in relation to international systems of states. In the same vein, Lebow (2010) and Lindemann (2010) have a strong focus on recognition as the main cause of interstate war. Recent works by Honneth (2011), Onuf (2011) and Wolf (2011) are also preoccupied with mutual recognition between states (Bartelson, 2013:1–2). This usage of the concept brings limitations, as recognition then only relates to state entities with apparently preconceived identities. Hence profound identity dynamics, particular to each collective – be it states or other entities caught up in the problematique of misrecognition – are overlooked. The inherent logic of many intrastate conflicts – often characterized by vicious circles of misrecognition – is thus disregarded. The conceptual development in this study contributes to an advancement of the concept of recognition, so that it becomes applicable in the analysis of all kinds of conflicts driven by misrecognition – and not solely in interstate conflicts, as has often been the case in international theory.

Secondly, the above accounts point to the fact that contemporary thought on recognition in the field of international relations theory mainly has focused on misrecognition as a cause of conflict – instead of probing ideas regarding how processes of recognition can also be understood as a way toward conflict resolution (Strömbom, 2012). Researchers preoccupied with the concept of recognition often agree that recognition – meaning that others acknowledge and recognize our existence – is a crucial feature of identity construction (Ringmar, 2012:6). The lack of recognition – misrecognition – is then in turn seen as a potential source of conflict (Markell, 2007:110). It is therefore imperative to investigate if and how misrecognition can be reversed. In this regard, my study builds on earlier work on identity aspects of recognition, such as that of Honneth (1995), Wendt (2003), Möller (2007) and Allan and Keller (2006).

The concept of thick recognition – the main conceptual advancement here – moves the recognition concept away from its interstate connotations and deepens our understandings of how identities and relationships among parties to intrastate conflicts can be transformed into more peaceful ones. In recent literature on conflict transformation (Buckley-Zistel, 2008, Dayton and Kriesberg, 2010), as well as within the literature dealing with reconciliation (Auerbach, 2009, Rosoux, 2009) and just peace (Aggestam, 2012, Allan and Keller, 2006) there have been efforts to think beyond (mis-) recognition as merely a cause of conflict. Here, researchers have focused on how to transform destructive relations into ones that allow for differences and promote shared responsibility for injustices in the past. I build my argument partly on insights developed by these researchers, guided by the idea that the ultimate challenge is to increase understanding of how recognition processes can be spurred in order to promote peace (cf. Aggestam, 2012:94).

Foundations

A processual ontology

This study is guided by a focus on process, whether it comes to theories regarding conflicts, narratives or identities. A “process” here means “a causally or functionally linked set of occurrences or events which produces ‘a change in the complexion of reality’. Furthermore, to say that a set of events constitute a particular process means that these events occur in an identifiable time-series” (Jackson and Nexon, 1999:302). The theorists who have developed a processual perspective on the study of society share the view that Western philosophy has always had a bias in favor of things and substances (Albert et al., 2001:3, Elias, 1978:111–112, Emirbayer, 1997:288, Jackson and Nexon, 1999:301–302, Rescher, 1996:29).

Processes are understood as having priority over product, as processes are seen as the source from which “things” are derived (Stripple, 2005:17). As my aspiration is to construct an analysis that accommodates the study of both structural factors as well as those concerning agency, the processual ontology is well suited as “relational scholars reject the notion that one can posit discrete, pre-given units such as the individual or society as the ultimate starting points of sociological analysis” (Emirbayer, 1997:287). The processual understanding of reality is crucial for this study, as it enables a view of conflicts, identities and narratives as undergoing constant change, allowing for the visualization of transformation in social settings, which, like intractable conflicts, on the surface might appear as static.

Power beyond the agency-structure divide?

The Israeli debates over competing historical narratives can be understood as a struggle over the right to define identity and difference in that society. At the heart of that process lies a struggle in which different subjects strive to create the authority needed in order to formulate or reformulate narratives of identity. The power of formulating identity hence takes center stage. Thus, I partly follow Dyrberg (1997) who has elaborated on Foucault’s power analysis. “[T]he most effective way to understand power,” he argues, “is to approach it in terms of processes of identification” (1997:13). Dyrberg does not refrain from concep...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgments
• List of Abbreviations
• Part I: Introduction
• Part II: Theory
• Part III: New History
• Part IV: Conclusion
• Notes
• References
• Index