Identity has a decisive relevance with regard to conflict resolution. Identity impacts directly on how individuals and groups behave in conflict situations as it encompasses a sense of psychological, social and also physical security. Terrell Northrup defines the dynamic of identity as "the tendency of human beings, individually and in groups, to establish, maintain, and protect a sense of self-meaning, predictability, and purpose" (1989: 63). As identity equals a sense of self in relation to the world, it provides us with the ability to predict how our behavior will affect others and their reactions towards us.
A threat to that sense of navigation causes immense existential fear and a general breakdown of our ability to function. A threat to identity can occur in the form of denied political participation, denied enactment of customs, language and religion, as well as forced prioritization of one identity allegiance or an annihilation of one identity layer.
If not challenged, different identity layers, which may at times be contradictory, coexist without causing difficulties within an individual. In a conflict the pressure to prioritize one of our allegiances over all others or to give up on one of them is experienced as a loss of other or even all vital attachments. Amin Maalouf explains that, although our identity is multi- layered, it is also singular in the sense that we experience it as a complete whole. If one constituent element of our identity is threatened, we feel that our whole existence is endangered (2000: 22).
If our identity is threatened, psychic or even physical annihilation can seem to be imminent. Annihilation here is to be understood not only in the sense of “causing a person to cease to exist” but also as “reducing a person to nothing” and as “destroying the substance or force of a person" (Northrup, 1989: 65). In this sense an injury to our identity can be experienced as a fear of
continued but meaningless and powerless existence, which is a torturing psychological state that is at least as important to our sanity as a physical threat.
In response to a threat of identity loss we react by mobilizing resources to protect our sense of self. Identity protecting mechanisms follow a reverse order of our emotional and social-cognitive development. Our identity structure is no longer open to refinement and expansion. The capacity to take in new information gradually diminishes. Existing beliefs about the self, others and the world become frozen and extremely resistant to change. The frozen beliefs act as a stabilizing mechanism that moves us from a felt experience of disintegration to one where we are psychologically integrated and balanced again. As a consequence, the ability to communicate, to hear what an opponent is saying, or to adopt a different perspective becomes exceedingly limited.
The same is true for group or social identity. A threat to group identity, just like a threat to personal identity, can take the form of a loss or the fear of a loss of something that constitutes group identity. Group members may react individually or collectively to threatening socio-political changes. Members of an identity group may synthesize a new identification or bolster the old one. How a group reacts to a shared identity threat depends on how the group as a whole perceives and defines the nature of the crisis. If a group identity factor, such as ethnicity, is core to the sense of self of a group of individuals, the process of mobilizing resources to protect that sense of self can occur as a group phenomenon.
The methodology of IPS employs insight about the impact of the identity factor on conflict behavior. As a threat to identity impairs identity formation mechanisms that account for cooperative behavior, the methodology aims at restoring the workability of identity formation mechanisms. The method gradually evolved from social-psychological concepts over a problem-
solving approach towards adopting process-elements of the identity factor to form a methodology of identity negotiation.
Impact of the Identity Factor on Conflict Escalation
For the purpose of comprehending and in a next step evaluating how IPS can restore identity formation mechanisms and account for a process of negotiating identity aspects, it is necessary to understand how elements of the identity forming process can spiral conflict escalation. Terrell Northrup describes four psychological processes inherent to the identity factor that escalate conflict behavior. They include threat of invalidation, distortion, rigidification and collusion (1989: 68).
Conflict Escalation
Invalidation
Distortion
Collusion Rigidification
Conflict Escalation
Invalidation
Distortion
Collusion Rigidification
First, the dynamic of identity formation can cause conflict if an event occurs in the course of a relationship between individuals or groups that is perceived as invalidating the core sense of identity of one or of several parties involved. The invalidation of a party’s core construct is experienced as
threatening because it destroys the meaning of who they are as well as the ability to predict events. In this conflict phase we fall back into the second stage of our cognitive development in which we are unable to take the viewpoints of others into account with regard to our own behavior.
The intensity of a conflict will be particularly high in the case where identities of two groups invalidate each other, as it is the case in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Many members of both parties believe that their own existence is threatened by the mere existence of the other. This is especially clear in relation to territorial claims. Both groups associate their sense of identity with the same land. Each side affirms that in order for them to maintain their identity they must live on and cultivate the same piece of land, which represents their meaning as a national group and their religious ties. Loss of that land, or the threat of its loss or of not obtaining it, means more than the fact of the loss of territory. It implies the loss of self and psychic annihilation. Davidson and Montville state that: "each side perceives the fulfillment of the other’s national identity as equivalent to the destruction of its own identity" (1981/82: 153). Thus, each is reluctant to accept the other’s right to a state expressing national identity. To do so would be to participate in a process imperiling one’s own national existence. Therefore, unless each side is assured that its own national existence is secure, neither can be expected to make a move to accept the other.
Second, the dynamic of identity can cause conflict if parties react to a threat of invalidation with distortion (Northrup, 1989: 69). This implies that incoming information is misperceived and distorted in order to maintain the core sense of identity. Distorting incoming information means that the one receiving a piece of information perceives it in a way that is inconsistent with reality and transforms this information into something that suits his, or her, own perception of things. This psychological response can be qualified as
aggressive because an individual or group of individuals seeks to force a meaning onto the invalidating event, for the purpose of making it seem validating. Our reaction pattern here corresponds to the first level of our cognitive development, in which our own perspective – and only our own perspective – equals reality.
Third, the dynamic of identity formation exacerbates conflict, as distorted views of events accumulate and form increasingly impermeable constructs. That is to say, parties engaged in conflict develop increasingly rigid interpretations of the world; this is why Northrup calls this process rigidification (1989: 70ff.). The psychological process that is at work here is directed at putting a distance between the self and the threat by separating the „invalidated“ party from the „invalidating“ one. As this process continues, more and more characteristics about the other party that have been perceived as „like self“ become threatening and are re-construed as being different from the self. This leads to a clear-cut perception of the self and the other.
The perceived threat of core identity invalidation, leads to rigidification of the clear-cut pictures of self and other, because the fear of losing our identity leads us to shut down our learning channels. In other words, new information that could make the in-group discover that the out-group has „like-self“ characteristics, is aggressively distorted, or simply not heard and seen (because they fall out of the „reality“ constructs of the self or the in-group, as in the late stages of our emotional development).
A further important aspect of rigidly construed conflict perception is that not only behavior and demands of the opponent party are perceived as threatening, but also beliefs and characteristics not related to the original threat. This aggravates conflicts and makes their resolution very difficult.
Parallel to the process of rigidification, the process of projection occurs, the mechanism that accounts for the creation of the enemy image. In a stage of
conflict where we feel that the integrity of our self is threatened and a certain hardening of conflict perception has taken place, we start to project parts of our self that we dislike onto the other and construe them as non-self qualities. The other, or the relationship to the other, serves to bring out some of the negative elements of our own identity, which we want to overcome or deny.
In a protracted conflict two types of negative identity elements are often brought to the fore by the relationship to the other: the view of one's own self as weak and vulnerable, and the view of one's self as violent and unjust (Kelman, 1999: 593). In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict such negative identity elements consist of the view of the self as victim and victimizer. At the level of political rhetoric each party claims the status of victim and each denies the role of victimizer. At the level of self-esteem, however, both of these elements are negative and ego-alien and, therefore, difficult to accept. This presents an obstacle to conflict resolution efforts, as it is necessary to accept one’s own weakness and error for the purpose of developing cooperative relations with an opponent. For example, to acknowledge the other's rights, may necessitate admitting unjust behavior towards the other.
As a consequence of rigidification and projection, differences between conflict parties are exaggerated while differences within each party are minimized. During this conflict phase we find ourselves thrown back to the third stage of our emotional development and react again like the infant who builds separate categories of experiences of good/bad, own/foreign, safe/threatening. Everything that we are familiar with is rated as being entirely good, of our own, and safe; while everything we do not know, is rated as being entirely bad, foreign, and threatening.
In the case of further aggravation of rigidified conflict perception, a process of deligitimization and even dehumanization develops, which portrays the other as being less valuable than the self-group. Deligitimization can install
a blatant domination-submission relationship between two conflict parties if one of them is unquestionably more powerful than the other. The dominating group portrays itself as representing the norm of what is valuable and sometimes even of what is human; while it portrays the other group as being different from that norm and therefore as being less valuable. Being excluded from the identity norm creates an unbearable situation for the dominated group as it pushes them into great uncertainty about their identity ( Bar-Tal, 2000: 121-124).
Deligitimization and dehumanization increase violence, as it is easier to harm someone construed as non-self or even inhuman. Things that we would never do to those who are like us are possible to be done to someone, who has nothing to do with us and is no longer seen as human but as an object, a target, and a threat.
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the most extreme examples of delegitimizing the other have consisted of equating Zionism with racism, and Palestinian nationalism, as represented by the PLO, with terrorism. Since racism and terrorism are morally unacceptable in human society, these designations not only deligitimize the other's national movement but even border on dehumanizing it by placing the other outside of the human community. Deligitimization announces that these national movements, and implicitly the national groups forming them, have no right to exist (Kelman, 1999: 590).
Fourth, as conflict dynamics further exacerbate, a collusion process takes hold (Northrup, 1989: 75). At this stage the behavior of conflict parties towards each other consists exclusively of hostile acts that can easily burst into violence. These acts serve to validate established distortions that actually created hostile behavior in the first place. The effect of distorting the image of the other is that they will indeed act according to that image. This leads to a
totally absurd phenomenon. Making the other group behave in a way that is consistent with the distortion provides security to the sense of identification, even though this behavior may include violent acts (and a physical threat to the existence of either group). The reason for this is that distortion is a response to the threat of invalidation of identity. The affirmation of distortion, therefore, proves that the threat to identity was successfully averted and the sense of identity is reassured. That way, the conditions of conflict become part of each conflict party’s identity.
As elements of the conflict begin to define the identity of the parties, the latter start to behave in ways that are consistent with maintaining the conflict. Northrup calls this process one of collusion because conflict parties adopt a kind of cooperation in prolonging the conflict relationship (1989: 75). Collusion may manifest itself in various forms, which mostly serve the purpose of sanctifying the struggle and honoring the efforts of the respective groups. Collusion provides affirmation of self-worth and secures the sense of self or self-group. As a consequence, the initially unintended collusion may over time be manifested in formal social, political, and economic structures within and between parties. In this case we speak of an institutionalization of conflict. At this stage, elements of the conflict have become formally established parts of the identity of those in conflict. Therefore, the prospect of ending the conflict represents a threat to the sense of self of conflict parties or an invalidation of their identity. Thereby the vicious circle of conflict escalation reaches its starting point.
In order to de-escalate the conflict spiral, a conflict resolution method needs to restore, in a long step-by-step process, natural identity formation that allow a cooperative relationship. Conflict resolution must first account for a confrontation between the opponents in order to break up the negative cooperation of collusion that constantly fuels conflict. If the parties can quarrel
with each other there is contact. Exchange between the parties can bring about the possibility of giving the other a human face again and a more differentiated image. The rigid enemy images can gradually soften and the opponent can eventually be heard and understood again, while Identity threats can be deterred and the conflict spiral de-escalated.
Developing a Method to De-escalate Conflict
IPS builds on the de-escalatory effect of restored identity forming processes. It aims at negotiating identity aspects in a way that strengthens the conflict parties’ sense of self and disperses identity threats. The development of IPS towards an identity management method has spanned over four decades. The method evolved from a social-psychological understanding of conflict theory, over adopting a problem-solving technique, towards integrating process-elements of identity formation.
With regard to both its conceptual foundation and its practical application IPS was predominantly influenced by the work of John W. Burton, a former diplomat from Australia. Burton started to develop an alternative conflict resolution approach in the early 1960s. Together with other social scientists he founded the Center for the Analysis of Conflict (CAC) at the University College in London (Fisher, 1997). The foundation of the center ensued from the positive experiences Burton and his colleagues had made during problem-solving discussions with representatives from Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore with regard to the conflict over Malaysia’s independence (Mitchell, 2001). The pioneering endeavor showed that analytical discussions allowing parties to freely talk about conflict issues without being pressured to produce an agreement could lead to productive results. Kelman was introduced to the application of Burton's method in 1966, when he joined the panel of social scientists at the CAC to facilitate a
discussion between Greek and Turkish Cypriots about the future status of the Republic of Cyprus (Kelman, 1999: 2).
Controlled Communication
The aspects of Burton's method that predominantly influenced the development of IPS were the system level of its analysis and its problem- solving technique. Dissatisfied with the options official diplomacy offered to reconcile conflict parties, Burton aimed at applying social theory to intractable violent conflicts and creating new means for conflict parties to analyze their problems and develop options for solutions. Burton approached conflict analysis in a problem-solving mode, which he defined as "questioning implied assumptions, attitudes and theories, putting forward alternative hypotheses and examining these in light of events" (1979: 6). Problem solving as a method, thus, entails approaching a problem, or a given conflict, through an analysis based on new parameters that are free of existing assumptions.
In this vein, Burton and his colleagues developed a theory of practice, which consisted of a methodology that was continuously informed by actual experiences. Burton called the practical application of the methodology “controlled communication” (1969). Later on, the term was used to describe the methods first phase of communication. In total the method contained three phases, in each phase the third party had distinct facilitating tasks. Controlled communication as a methodological term did not mean that the facilitators intended to control the participants. It referred to the intent to keep the nature of the discussions on an analytic level that would allow conflict parties to stand back from adversarial positions and see their conflict as a problem to be solved.
Calling the first phase of Burton's method, controlled communication referred to the effort of the third party to grant each participant the possibility to describe his or her perception of the conflict.
Keeping a discussion between conflict parties on an analytic, non- polemic level proved to be quite difficult at times. For example, at the occasion of the meeting with Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the third-party members agreed to initiate the meeting by asking each side to present their view of the conflict. The aim behind a mutual presentation of perceptions was that the participants would thereby become ready to listen to each other. Contrary to these hopes, the parties got caught up in a fierce debate. To bring talks back to