1 Introduction
The victim is a paradoxical, fraught figure in the social world . According to Jeffery and Candea (2006, 289), the victim label claims a non-political space, âit clears the ground, it poses itself as the neutral or indisputable starting point from which discussion, debates, and action ... can and must proceedâ. Victimhood is, however, inherently political. The characteristics commonly associated with the victim render it a powerful image in shaping public discourses, policy responses, and social action, and are often used to justify the victimisation of others. Scholars of criminology and critical victimology have long argued that our knowledge of the victim is constructed within social and political structures which emphasise the wrongfulness of certain harms and obscure forms of victimisation which are less recognisable or more socially contested (Carrabine et al. 2004; Mawby and Walklate 1994; Walklate 2007). Moreover, how we construct and apply the label of âvictimâ (and conversely, âperpetratorâ) neglects the âgrey zonesâ of human suffering (Levi 1986) and has a range of social, political, psychological, and moral implications.
This book focuses primarily on how social processes of victimhood operate in settings of conflict, where many groups will have been both targeted with violence and responsible for it, creating complex and overlapping conflict roles: âIt is probably universal that in every serious, harsh and violent intergroup conflict, at least one sideâand often both sidesâbelieve that they are the victim in that conflictâ (Bar-Tal et al. 2009, 229â30). The public nature of victimhood in conflict elevates its social dimensions (Brewer 2010; Rosland 2009), and collective , even historical, perceptions of victimhood serve as a proxy for narratives of legitimacy and blame which persist even after political settlements are negotiated or oppressive regimes are overthrown.
Over the past several decades, the nature of violent conflict has shifted in ways that exacerbate contest over victimhood and blur the lines between victims and perpetrators. Instead of conflict between states and state actors, violence often takes place within states and amongst populations fractured over competing ethno-national claims (Kaldor 2001; Lederach 2008; Oberschall 2007). Conflicts are increasingly related to matters of identity and based on perceptions of zero-sum goals between opponents, creating confrontations which are âlong-lasting, hard to resolve, and threatening to the international community â (Bar-Tal 2013, 12). Transformation of these conflicts cannot rely solely on agreeing to abandon violent campaigns and resolving conflicting political interests, but must seek to build relationships between former enemies and revise social identities which are rooted in historical animosities and negation of the otherâs humanity (Kelman 2004; Lederach 2005, 2008; Nadler and Schnabel 2008; Riek et al. 2008). Perceptions of victimisation and guilt are embedded in groupsâ narratives of who they are, of their own legitimacy, and the âdegeneracy of the other sideâ (Lawther 2014a, 12), and so for societies emerging from protracted violent conflict, this process of transformation can be highly problematic (Knox 2001; Lelourec and OâKeeffe-Vigneron 2012).
The victim is often held up as the raison dâetre of normative responses to violent conflict (if not instrumental for their legitimacy), especially in transitional justice systems such as truth commissions and international criminal trials (GarcĂa-Godos and Sriram 2013; Hayner 2011; McEvoy and McConnachie 2012; Teitel 2000). It is argued that victims require some combination of truth, justice, reparations, and psychological healing to make sense of the harms they suffered, restore their human dignity, and reconcile society (Boraine 2006; Crocker 2003; van der Merwe 2003). These processes, however, are often ill-equipped to consider the complex and multiple identities of those affected by conflict or the intractable intergroup processes which reflect variable if not contradictory perceptions of violence, victimhood, and guilt. They encounter the roles of âvictimâ and âperpetratorâ as fixed and mutually exclusive (Borer 2003), forcing actors to fit within a pre-designed nar rative and emphasising the dichotomy between the âideal victimâ (Bouris 2007; Christie 1986) and evil perpetrator that fails to reflect the complex realities of human experience (Mani 2002; McAlinden 2014).
Moreover, victimhood in conflict is often experienced collectively (Bar-Tal et al. 2009; Noor et al. 2012; Viano 1989), and beliefs about which populations are the âprimaryâ victims in these confrontations is a source of contention. Particularly once sustained, physical violence abates and societies attempt to consolidate peace, âWhat victimhood is and who gets to define it are ⌠key questions in truth recovery and peace processesâ (Brewer 2006, 22). Groups who have been victimised in conflict may be less likely to acknowledge or take responsibility for the harms suffered by adversaries, and deploy a range of social and cognitive processes to maintain this denial (Bar-Tal 2013; Bar-Tal et al. 2009; Noor et al. 2012; Oberschall 2007) How , then , should societies undertake to address their violent pasts and the perceptual legacies of violence when there is disagreement over who are the victims and who are the perpetrators? What impact does the âmessinessâ of these conflict roles have on the potential for mechanisms such as truth commissions, tribunals and reparations to build peace and facilitate reconciliation between former adversaries?
In this introductory chapter, I lay out the themes and questions underpinning this study, and contextualise the research in a necessarily judicious overview of the conflict and on-going contention over narratives of victimhood and responsibility for violence in Northern Ireland. I close with a brief explanation of my research design and methodology, and finally an outline of the chapters which follow.
2 The Research
There is broad consensus that in order for societies to build peace, they must address the legacy of past violence and injustice (Hayner 2011; Lederach 2008; Minow 1998; Teitel 2000). Processes of peacebuilding aim to identify and transform the issues which have caused, escalated, and emerged from violent conflict to establish a more stable, sustainable peace. Reconciliation is a central component of peacebuilding, and describes processes which, among other things, transform the basis of relationships between former enemies, addressing divisive identities and socioemotional legacies of victimisation and guilt (Bloomfield 2006; Lederach 2008; Nadler and Schnabel 2008). These processes may be facilitated by transitional justice mechanisms, which attempt to establish social trust and mutual accountability through the provision of truth, justice, and reparations (Aiken 2010; Lambourne 2009; McAdams 2011). Starting from this foundational assumption, I am particularly interested in...