![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Analyzing the Kurdish conflict, we examined how Kurds and Turks in Turkey and in the diaspora (in Belgium) construe reconciliation and how they approach reconciliation and intergroup forgiveness. Kurds’ construal of reconciliation tapped into seven themes, grouped as a dialogue-based construal of reconciliation (themes: dialogue, recognition, emotions and peace) versus a rights-based construal (themes: identity rights, freedom and confederative rights). Turks’ construal of reconciliation covered eight themes, grouped as unity-based construal of reconciliation (themes: unity, rights, dialogue, recognition, and emotions), disarming PKK-based construal of reconciliation (themes: disarming PKK and peace) and rejecting reconciliation (theme: rejection of reconciliation). Kurds endorsing the emotion and dialogue themes and Turks endorsing a unity-based construal of reconciliation were more forgiving of the other group. Implications of these different meanings and relationships of reconciliation are discussed.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Gülseli Baysu is a lecturer in the School of Psychology at Queen’s University Belfast. She conducts research and publishes on social psychology of cultural diversity, immigration and integration, educational success of immigrants, intergroup relations, identity processes, and identity politics. She recently published research on Muslim identity in the Gezi park protests of Turkey.
Canan Coşkan is a guest lecturer in the Institute for Interdisciplinary Conflict and Violence Research, Bielefeld University, Germany. She conducts research on how self and identity are connected in the context of acculturation, on intergroup contact and reducing discrimination, and on how social, ethnic, cultural and political identities connect to the processes of social change such as reconciliation and collective action.
Notes
1. Neuberg et al., “Religion and Intergroup Conflict,” 198–206.
2. Spini, Elcheroth, and Fasel, “Towards a Community Approach.”
3. Azcárate, “Psychosocial Dynamics.”
4. Bar-Tal and Bennink, “The Nature of Reconciliation”; Kelman, “Reconciliation as Identity Change”: and Kelman, “Reconciliation.”
5. Bar-Tal and Bennink, “The Nature of Reconciliation.”
6. Shnabel and Nadler, “A Needs-based Model of Reconciliation.”
7. See for example, McLernon, Cairns, and Hewstone, “Views on Forgiveness,” 285–90, and Van Tongeren et al., “A Meta-analysis.”
8. KONDA, Biz Kimiz?, 21–4, and Sirkeci, “Kurdish Population.”
9. Yeğen, “Turkish Nationalism.”
10. Yıldız, “Turkey’s Kurdish Conflict.”
11. Mandıracı, Turkey’s PKK Conflict.
12. ICG, Turkey and the PKK, 5–9, and Yeğen, “Kurdish Peace Process.”
13. Yeğen, “Kurdish Peace Process.”
14. Başer, Kurdish Diaspora in Europe, 9–15, 30, and Østergaard-Nielsen, “Turks and Kurds.”
15. Alinia and Eliassi, “Identity, Home(Land), and Politics,” 73–81.
16. But also see Casier, “Gatekeepers.”
17. JimmisVideos, “Muslims Riot in Belgium”; Koutroubas, Vloeberghs, and Yanasmayan, “Political, Religious and Ethnic Radicalisation”; and Résistances, “Les loups gris.”
18. But also see Casier, “Gatekeepers.”
19. Rigoni, “Les mobilisations.”
20. Bar-Tal and Bennink, “The Nature of Reconciliation” and Kelman, “Reconciliation.”
21. Bar-Tal and Bennink, “The Nature of Reconciliation.”
22. Nadler, “Intergroup Reconciliation,” 294.
23. Jeannotte, “Promoting Social Integration” and Bar-Tal and Bennink, “The Nature of Reconciliation.”
24. Bar-Tal and Bennink, “The Nature of Reconciliation” and Nadler, “Intergroup Reconciliation,” 294.
25. But also see for example Shnabel and Nadler, “A Needs-based Model.”
26. Licata et al., “Perceived Outgroup (Dis)continuity” and Noor, Brown, and Prentice, “Intergroup Reconciliation” and Čehajić, Brown, and Castano, “Forgive and Forget.”
27. For reconciliation as trust and collaboration see Kanazayire et al., “Reconciliation Sentiments” and Mukashema and Mullet, “Reconciliation Sentiment in Rwanda.” For reconciliation as the need to talk to and interact see Noor, Brown, and Prentice, “Intergroup Reconciliation.”
28. Bar-Tal, “Socio-psychological Foundations.”
29. For outgroup (dis)trust see Çelebi et al., “Out-group Trust.” For attitudes towards reconciliation see Bar-Tal, Intractable Conflicts, 24.
30. Çelik and Blum, “Reconciliation in the Kurdish Issue.” See also Bilali, “Downsides”and Çelebi et al., “Out-group Trust.”
31. Uluğ and Cohrs, “Kurdish Conflict Frames,” 109–19, and Uluğ and Cohrs, “Ethos of Conflict.”
32. Van Dijk, “Discourse, Power and Access,” 90–2.
33. Enright, Freedman, and Rique, “Interpersonal Forgiveness,” 46–7.
34. van Tongeren et al., “Meta-analysis of Intergroup Forgiveness,” 81–95.
35. Nadler and Shnabel, “Intergroup Reconciliation.”
36. See for example Baysu and Duman, “Why Does Identity Matter?,” 43–51, and McLernon, Cairns, and Hewstone, “Views on Forgiveness,” 285–90. For a review see van Tongeren et al., “Meta-analysis of Intergroup Forgiveness.”
37. KONDA, Biz Kimiz?, 21–4, and Sirkeci, “Kurdish Population.”
38. Hjort and Frisen, “Ethnic Identity and Reconciliation.”
39. Moeschberger et al., “Forgiveness in Northern Ireland,” 115–21.
40. Postmes, Haslam, and Jans, “Single-item Measure of Social Identification,” 597–617.
41. Hallgren, “Inter-rater Reliability,” 23–4.
42. McCutcheon, Latent Class Analysis.
43. Theoretically this distinction is in line with the view of reconciliation in Nadler and Shnabel, “Intergroup Reconciliation” and Bar-Tal and Bennink, “The Nature of Reconciliation.” Empirically, though, the following research measures reconciliation only as a psychological change: Kanazayire et al., “Identification with Rwanda”; Noor, Brown, and Prentice, “Intergroup Reconciliation”; and Staub, “Reconciliation After Genocide.”
44. For conflict frames see Bilali, “Downsides of a Shared National Identification”; Çelik and Blum, “Reconciliation in the Kurdish Issue” and Uluğ and Cohrs, “Kurdish Conflict Frames.”
45. While we speak of language rights as cultural or identity rights as separate from political claims such as political autonomy or federation, we do not deny that identity can also be perceived as a political position. This would be in line with our Kurdish respondents’ position for whom the cultural and political go hand in hand.
46. For a more detailed information on the theories of change in conflict resolution, see Çelik and Blum, “Reconciliation in the Kurdish Issue.”
47. Bakıner, “Politics of Memory” and Çelik and Blum, “Reconciliation in the Kurdish Issue.”
48. Uluğ and Cohrs, “Kurdish Conflict Frames in Turkey.”
49. Schäfers, “Being Sick of Politics,” discusses how the Kurdish female singers strategically distinguish the cultural domain from the political. The article also explains how and why Kurdish identity is a political existence.
50. Uluğ and Cohrs, “Kurdish Conflict Frames in Turkey” and Cohrs et al., “Ethos of Conflict.”
51. Başer and Çelik, “Imagining Peace”, focus on Kurdish youths’ framing of the Kurdish issue as well as the dominant peace frame in Turkey.
52. Gaertner and Dovidio, Reducing Intergroup Bias.
53. Baysu and Duman, “Why Does Identity Matter?,” 43–51.
54. Cohrs et al., “Ethos of Conflict,” 33–45.
55. A clear demonstration of this relationship can be seen in the words of a Turkish respondent in one of the workshops initiated by civil society organizations during the peace process ‘If I see that my Kurdish friends have an understanding of nationalism beyond asking for cultural rights, such as an ethnic nationalism, it is right to have a fear of being divided’, cited in Çelik, “The Kurdish Issue,” 57.
56. Ünlü, “The Kurdish Struggle,” 397–405, and Yeğen, “‘Prospective-Turks’.”
57. According to Biner, ‘The law was designed to compensate citizens who had incurred material damages as a result of the military conflict between PKK and Turkish armed forces.’ (Bitner, “The Right to Compensation,” 73).
58. For conflict frames see Bilali, “Downsides”; Çelik and Blum, “Reconciliation in the Kurdish Issue”; and Uluğ and Cohrs, “Kurdish Conflict Frames.”
59. Ensaroğlu, “Turkey’s Kurdish Question.”
60. Bousetta and Swyngedouw, La citoyenneté.
61. for Germany and the Netherlands see Østergaard-Nielsen, “Turks and Kurds.”
62. This is not to say that the insecurities felt by both groups are symmetric. Please see Çelik, “The Kurdish Issue.”
63. Çelik and Blum, “Track II Interventions” and Çelik, “The Kurdish Issue.”
64. Uluğ and Cohrs, “A Comparison.”
65. KONDA, Konda Barometresi, and KONDA, Kürt meselesinde.
66. Bar-Tal and Bennink, “The Nature of Reconciliation”; Nadler and Shnabel, “Intergroup Reconciliation”; and van Tongeren et al., “Meta-analysis.”
67. Shnabel et al., “Promoting Reconciliation,” 1021–30.
68. Ünlü, “The Kurdish Struggle”; Yeğen, “Turkish Nationalism”; and Yeğen, “‘Prospective Turks’.”
69. Baser, The Kurdish Diaspora, and Phalet, Baysu, and van Acker, “Ethnicity and Migration,” 142–7.
70. Baysu and Duman, “Why Does Identity Matter?,” 43–51, and Van Bruinessen, “Shifting National and Ethnic Identities.”
71. Alinia and Eliassi, “Temporal and Generational Impact” and Başer, “Intricacies of Engaging Diasporas.”
72. For Turkish immigrants in Europe, see for example Fleischmann, Phalet, and Klein, “Religious Identification and Politicization.”
73. Al-Ali and Taş, “‘War is Like a Blanket’.”