Das Zusammenspiel von kollektiven Erinnerungen, Erzählungen, Emotionen und Einstellungen in ethnopolitischen Konflikten Südkaukasiens

Narrative intervention in conflict resolution is rarely an object of social psychological studies. Only recently have scholars of conflict resolution turned to analyse the role of narratives for conflict resolution thus giving birth to narrative approach to interethnic conflict (Winslade & Monk, 2000). Within the “narrative” framework conflicts in some essential ways are considered as competing stories (Cobb, 2004). As evidenced by many cases parties at conflict strive for legitimizing their claims by creation and dissemination of their own version of “what happened in reality” while at the same time trying to delegitimize the narratives and claims of their opponents. In this connection supporters of narrative approach believe that, for effective conflict resolution, competing narratives should undergo certain transformations that could bring them towards convergence into a common narrative (Cobb, 1993). The underlying assumption is that a common narrative would help parties at conflict to create a shared, internally consistent vision of the past, present and future, which is considered as an important precondition for civil peace (Steiner-Khamsi, 1994). However, creation of a common narrative is a difficult task, especially for interethnic conflicts. One of the main obstacles arises from the fact that in periods of war and conflict, societies develop their own narratives which, from their viewpoint, become the only true narratives. These narratives tend to denigrate and disavow the narrative of enemy (Adwan & Bar-On, 2004; Bar-On & Kassem, 2004; Ron and Maoz, 2013).
Regarding narrative intervention into intractable conflicts, at least two issues that could restrain intervention effectiveness are worth mentioning. One is what might be called narrative embeddedness into identity (Hammack, 2008). Thus, some scholars argue that national identities are grounded in a stock of stories (MacIntyre, 1984). In this connection, any desired narrative transformations should inevitably be limited by patterns of identity based in the larger stock of stories. Another issue may be called narrative truth. Wertsch (2013) distinguishes between propositional truth and narrative truth. Propositional truth is more about historical facts (dates, acts of particular historical personages, and so forth) that can be more or less easily verified, whereas narrative truth is about the motives of the personages or the meanings of the historical events. Narrative truth is maintained through the ways how the events are spun into a coherent story (Wertsch, 2013). In this perspective, conflicting parties may have almost opposite motivational accounts of the same historical events.