Search results

Traumatic events such as wars and genocides generate powerful emotions, most notably fear and distrust. Based on analysis of in‐depth field interviews, this article aims to deepen our understanding of the role of emotion in the reconciliation process by means of concepts described in the intergroup emotions theory. This paper begins with an overview of the literature on intergroup emotions theory and then discusses the implications of group‐level emotions in regard to intergroup behavior and the reconciliation process in a context where trauma is prevalent and the social distance between groups is high such as is the case in BiH. It is then argued that including peacebuilding measures that take into account intergroup emotions—decreasing negative group‐based emotional experiences, especially trauma‐related emotions which can be easily manipulated such as fear—has become imperative in BiH. This article also aims to highlight the importance of developing trust as a crucial element in the reconciliation process.

Twenty-one years after the signing of the Dayton Agreement, BiH continues to face persistent socio-political tensions, a difficult economic situation and outlook as well as problems with ethnic relations. Given BiH's history of violence, heed ought to be paid to the lack of progress associated with the reconciliation process between ethnic groups. Based on analysis of in-depth interviews, carried out between 2011 and 2015, this paper argues that focusing attention on individual responsibility for the atrocities committed during the 1992-1995 war, rather than on collective guilt, will lay the groundwork to more positive intergroup relations. Collective guilt or shame contributes to negative affect, which strengthens denial and avoidance. This article discusses how perceived outgroup heterogeneity decreases long term intergroup polarization and facilitates the participation of the "other" group's members to prevent future violence. Also, this paper addresses the question of the "black sheep effectˮ, as research in social psychology demonstrates the tendency for group members to disparage an ingroup member who has violated an important social norm, rule or law. Once a reorientation toward the "other" begins, the process is likely to continue so long as it is reinforced by the ingroup as a social norm.

The main argument of this article emphasizes the intimate connections which exist between the opportunity for participation and the possibilities of healing in the peacebuilding context of Bosnia–Herzegovina (BiH). More specifically, the goal is to examine how trauma is managed in such a way as to exclude the nonelite locals—the ordinary citizens—labeled as traumatized and how this exclusion affects both the "traumatized" and the potential outcomes of peacebuilding initiatives in BiH. In this article, it is argued that marginalized ordinary citizens are caught in a vicious circle that impedes the healing of their trauma and results in their exclusion from peacebuilding processes. This situation allows disempowerment to fester and grow, hinders the healing process, and undermines peacebuilding efforts. Based on data gathered through multiple field trips, this article also shows that the ordinary citizens are intuitively aware of the connections between participation, trauma, and political access, thus suggesting the power relations and political stakes inherent in local participation and trauma‐related activities.

Cet article soutient que les notions « guérison » et « réconciliation » – souvent utilisées de façon imprécise et ambiguë – servent à distinguer les approches ascendante et descendante en matière de consolidation de la paix. Ces notions contribuent également à dissimuler les liens complexes existant entre les processus psychosociaux associés à la guérison et les processus politiques associés à la réconciliation. De nombreux programmes et processus de consolidation de la paix sont conçus à partir de la distinction entre guérison et réconciliation. Or, lorsque le lien entre la guérison et la réconciliation est rompu, la consolidation de la paix engendre des expériences de victimisation secondaire qui fragilisent et peuvent compromettre la paix. Pour appuyer cet argument, nous considérons le cas de la Bosnie-Herzégovine.

These case studies explore the inextricable link between psychological recovery and socio-political reconciliation, and the political issues that dominate this relationship. Through an examination of the construction of social narratives about or for peace, the text offers a new perspective on peacebuilding, which challenges and questions the very nature of the dichotomy between 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches