Building Trust in Divided Societies?
by
Dr J. E. Hazlett Lynch
Table of Contents
What causes societies to be divided?. 4
Social exclusion and divided societies. 9
Ethnocentrism – a cause of mistrust 22
Bibliography and References. 38
Building Trust in Divided Societies?
“Traumatic experiences damage trust,”[1] (Herman)
Introduction
To say that many modern societies are divided is a truism; but how to bring them together again into a ‘happy marriage’ is another question. Yet that is part of the responsibility that faces people, including governments, in today’s world. This paper is an attempt to understand how one would seek to establish trust in divided societies. In order to do this, I will try to explain briefly what divides societies, what the effects of such division has, what trust is, and how it can be built for the betterment of those involved.
When Govier states, "Trust is a highly problematic but recurrent feature of social relationships",[2] she is stating something that is well understood in situations where it has broken down, such as, in
What causes societies to be divided?
Brown claims that where cohesion breaks down, groups, or societies, become divided. Following Schachter, he understands ‘cohesion’ as “the ‘cement’ binding together group members and maintaining their relationships to one another.”[5] Subsequent researchers refined this definition, resulting in a consensus among them that cohesion should rather be regarded as “the sum of the interpersonal attractions that existed among group members,”[6] and, by extension, to societies.
Add to this Lederach’s view that while cohesion within wider society may suffer, internal cohesion is strengthened when faced by a sharpening definition of external threat or enemy.[7] Lederach also identifies the “immediacy of the experience,” which
arises from the close proximity of conflicting groups, the shared common histories of the conflictants, and the dynamic of severe stereotyping coupled with radically different perceptions of each others [8]
as the criteria that differentiates internal from international conflicts.[9] This is insightful, especially in geographically proximate theatres.
The closeness of antagonists, which was characteristic of most armed conflicts in the mid-1990’s,[10] means that local knowledge fuels the urge to distrust what the “others” are doing, or planning to do. Then those who perceive themselves to be under threat move into more narrowly defined and smaller identity groups for safety.[11]
Because conflicts are usually “lodged in long-standing relationships,” they are protracted or intractable.[12] Understanding that this historical dimension is present helps us to see divided societies against a broader backdrop, and why trust can be so difficult. The existence of “long-term animosity, perception of enmity, and deep-rooted fear” converge to validate the use of the word ‘intractable.’[13] Immediacy also means that the enemy may live virtually next door, as in areas of
Building trust in such situations is profoundly challenging because the sociological dynamic of “reciprocal causation,”[15] implies that
the response mechanism within the cycle of violence and counterviolence becomes the cause for perpetuating the conflict, especially where groups have experienced mutual animosity for decades, if not generations.[16]
It appears that Lederach views long-term fear and the experience of violence as net contributors to distrust, and therefore division, in societies. Hence, the way to solve this problem is to deal effectively with the instruments of fear and violence.
But even Brown’s et al definition was an oversimplification, because it reduced the group, or societal phenomenon, “to the mere aggregate of some individual properties, implying that the group was no more (or no less) than the sum of its constituents,”[17] a reductionist viewpoint that is problematic. It ran into the further problem that groups could maintain a measure of cohesion while not even liking or agreeing with each other.[18] That definition is so focused on interpersonal relationships that it is difficult to apply to societies.[19]
Finally, it came to be recognised that “group cohesiveness stems from social attraction to one’s fellow group members as group members, whatever they are like as individuals.[20] This comes close to Misztal’s viewpoint that sees trust as a “lubricant of cooperation,"[21] and has the category of 'public good' assigned to it,[22] regardless of how other members are perceived.
Is division in society always a bad thing? The assumption is that it is, by definition, an undesirable characteristic of any society.[23] Every attempt ought to be made to remove divisions, since these are deemed to be unacceptable.
But difference/diversity is something that ought to be recognised and celebrated by all,[24] but within certain limits in non-threatening areas, and room provided for each sectoral interest in society to express its own differentiating marks in a way that is respectful to those who do not share those differentiating marks.
Also, the New Testament[25] teaches that not all division is unacceptable, even where people hold diverse views about important subjects.[26] In the Corinthian correspondence, Paul contends that division is important in order to show who has God’s approval.[27]
The difficulties arise, however, when communities are unable to accommodate their differences in a mature manner, and seek to impose their views and aspirations on to others. These difficulties degenerate into serious problems when those who are unable to argue their case successfully (or have a poor case) resort to violence (terrorist[28] and otherwise) to get their opponents to accept their point of view. Where this occurs, participants in the violence, either as perpetrators or recipients, become traumatised, and “traumatic experiences damage trust.”[29]
It is important to realise, with Lederach, that “in almost all cases …conflicts are intranational in scope, that is, they are fought between groups who come from within the boundaries of a defined state.”[30] He goes on to note that although most conflicts start here,
they internationalise to the degree that some conflictants, particularly opposition movements, inhabit neighbouring countries; weapons and money flow in from the surrounding region and from more distant locations; and displaced refugee populations cross immediate and distant borders. As such, many contemporary armed conflicts are most accurately defined as internal and internationalised.[31] (Emphasis his).
However, Lederach’s statement that “intranational conflict … is more akin to communal and intercommunal conflict than to international – that is, inter-state – conflict,”[32] is too generalised to be applicable to specific situations.
Further, while ‘conflicts’ may start as inter-community fall-outs, they do not stop there. In
Social exclusion and divided societies
Social exclusion is a major issue of concern and has been identified by Byrne[35] et al as one of the causes of divided societies.[36] Social exclusion[37] is brought about by a number of differing circumstances that are experienced in the life of an individual or group.[38] ‘Social exclusion’ usually comes in the wake of a transition from one state to another.[39]
“The expression ‘social exclusion’ is now widely employed in debates about the social politics of
“happens … in a time in history, and ‘determines’ the lives of the individuals and collectivities who are excluded and of those individuals and collectivities who are not.”[42]
Evidence from research carried out by social scientists
does not show that all post-industrial cities are polarised. It shows they are polarising, and that those that are fully subject to liberalising post-industrial capitalism are polarised”.[43]
bravenet.com