Plotting stories after war: Toward a methodology for negotiating identity
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| Author | Nadim Khoury |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066117711743 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117711743
European Journal of
International Relations
2018, Vol. 24(2) 367 –390
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066117711743
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
E
JR
I
Plotting stories after war:
Toward a methodology for
negotiating identity
Nadim Khoury
University of Tromsø — The Arctic University of Norway, and Bjørknes University College, Oslo, Norway
Abstract
Identity is an important factor in international conflicts. As it is a crucial part of the
problem, some scholars argue, national identity should be an important part of the
solution. Parties to the conflict, they recommend, should negotiate their national
identities so as to reach a “narrative equilibrium” that will allow them to overcome
national stereotypes, build trust, and sustain peaceful relations in the future. This article
evaluates not the merits of these negotiations, but the tools that social scientists have
employed to analyze them. Its main purpose, therefore, is methodological. It argues
that attempts to theorize the negotiation of identity fall short of their goal because
they focus heavily on the notion of negotiation and very little on the concept of
identity. To remedy this shortcoming, the article turns to the structural theories of
narrative to conceptualize the negotiation of identity as a negotiation of literary plots. It
argues that the negotiation of identity is the attempt to move away from two mutually
exclusive romantic plots, and toward tragic, comic, or satiric plots in counterpoint.
The introduction of plots, the article concludes, provides important insights that help
theorize the negotiation of identity in post-conflict scenarios.
Keywords
Conflict, identity, narrative, nationalism, negotiation, peace
Introduction
“All wars are fought twice,” notes Viet Nguyen (2013: 144), “the first time in the bat-
tlefield, the second time in memory.” This rings true in Israel/Palestine, Northern/
Southern Cyprus, and other cases where disputes over history are an inherent part of
Corresponding author:
Nadim Khoury, Department of Philosophy, University of Tromsø — The Arctic University of Norway,
Postboks 6050, Langnes, Tromsø, 9037, Norway.
Email: nadim.khouri@uit.no
711743EJT0010.1177/1354066117711743European Journal of International RelationsKhoury
research-article2017
Article
368 European Journal of International Relations 24(2)
entrenched conflicts. The corollary of this observation is equally valid. Like war, peace
is negotiated twice: the first time to stop the bloodshed on the battlefield; the second time
to reconcile the resentful memories that flow from this bloodshed. We observe these
negotiations when historians meet in bilateral historical commissions to review their
respective nations’ textbooks (Barkan, 2009; Durand and Kaempf, 2014; Falk, 2008;
Karn, 2006), when rival governments discuss conflicting interpretations of the past
(Lustick, 2014; Rosoux, 2001a, 2001b), and when members of divided societies delib-
erate about their traumatic past (Torpey, 2001).
In this article, I am interested in the conceptual frameworks that scholars have
employed to examine these attempts. For example, Lisa Strömbom (2014) and Karl
Gustaffson (2015) build on theories of recognition to examine the Israeli–Palestinian and
Sino-Japanese conflicts over identity as struggles over recognition. Strömbom then uses
the same theories to examine how narratives of thick recognition can possibly reverse
such conflicts. Susanne Buckley-Zistel (2008) draws on Gadamer’s fusion of horizons to
capture the construction and reconstruction of identity after the civil war in Uganda.
Farid Abdel-Nour (2015) employs the Rawlsian notion of overlapping consensus to con-
ceptualize a solution to the conflicting narratives of Israelis and Palestinians, while
Bashir Bashir and Amos Goldberg (2014) examine efforts to bridge the collective mem-
ory of the Jewish Holocaust and the Palestinian Nakba as deliberations on memory.
I want to contribute to these discussions by focusing on a line of research that employs
theories of negotiation. The latter has been developed by scholars of conflict resolution,
such as Herbert Kelman (1997), Valérie-Barbara Rosoux (2001a, 2001b), and Karina
Korostelina (2007), who recast the aforementioned efforts as negotiations over identity.
Negotiating identity, writes Kelman (1997: 335), is a “process of give and take between
groups whose ideas about their respective national identities conflict with one another.”
This process entails “reciprocal adjustments in the two groups’ self-definition that might
help to resolve the conflict between them” (Kelman, 1997: 335). Kelman developed this
notion of negotiating identity amid attempts to encourage unofficial diplomacy between
Israelis and Palestinians. Social scientists, he concluded, can contribute significantly to
such attempts through “the reconceptualization of national identity and the development
of a methodology for negotiating identity” (Kelman, 1997: 340).
As a scholar and practitioner, Kelman is interested in a methodology to study these
negotiations and to help actors potentially succeed in them. My goal in this article is
more limited. I focus solely on the conceptual tools that scholars use to study these nego-
tiations. I do not offer advice to mediators engaged in actual processes of negotiating
identity, nor do I subscribe to the idea that these negotiations will necessarily transform
identity into a constructive force for peace. The questions that I am interested in are: how
have social scientists responded to Kelman’s call to develop a methodology for negotiat-
ing identity? What contributions did they make and what obstacles did they face? Finally,
what tools are best fitted to develop this methodology?
My answer proceeds as follows. I begin by reviewing existing attempts to develop a
methodology for negotiating identity. These attempts typically borrow insights from
negotiation and bargaining theory and apply them to processes of identity formation. I
argue that such attempts fall short of their goal because they focus heavily on the notion
of negotiation and little on the concept of identity. I address this shortcoming in the
To continue reading
Request your trial