Unsettling Empathy. Bjorn Krondorfer
master narratives, the emergence of moral emotions, the courage to become vulnerable, attachments to collective history, the acting out of transgenerational obligations, or the ability to develop trust and relational empathy. Though this book focuses on how these dynamics positively affect groups in conflict, it will also introduce moments of disappointment and frustration. As these dynamics evolve in intergroup encounters, they can operate as stumbling blocks or building blocks.
“Approaches,” the third layer, are defined as the practical means by which the dynamics of a conflict can be articulated or made visible in particular intergroup encounters. Every facilitation relies on a set of techniques and exercises that have proven useful to a facilitator depending on his or her expertise and training. What we do in my workshops and seminars does not neatly line up with a standard method, which is why I prefer calling the practical components “approaches” rather than tools, techniques, or exercises. When I guide groups in conflict, these approaches are never devoid of content (as the terms “tool” or “technique” might suggest) but constitute an integral part of the process. Put differently, “dynamics” and “approaches” are inseparably tied to each other as they evolve together. What a particular approach can do is to vocalize, visualize, intensify, or mediate certain dynamics that either thwart or encourage the trust-building that is necessary for working through past and current agonies. Approaches introduced in this book include, among others, living sculptures, timelines, loaded words, witnessing circles, triangulation, memory objects, amplification, and the arts.
To assist the reader—and also provide a guide for the practitioner—I have included a glossary at the end of this book. The glossary contains those terms that I deem particularly helpful for my work. They include conceptual terms related to frames, analytical terms related to dynamics, and practical terms pertaining to approaches. When a glossary term appears in a substantial way for the first time in the text, it is marked with an *asterisk.
Reading this book, I hope, will inspire people to join those walking on a path of unsettling empathy for the sake of future generations.
Notes
1.
On melancholy in Benjamin’s thought on history, see Raymond Barglow, “The Angel of History” (1999).
2.
This passage of Walter Benjamin’s 1940 essay, “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” was first published in English in the collection Illuminations (1969; edited by Hannah Arendt and translated by Harry Zohn). Many translations, with small variations, are now circulating. Below is the full passage as translated by Dennis Redmond: “There is a painting by Klee called Angelus Novus. An angel is depicted there who looks as though he were about to distance himself from something which he is staring at. His eyes are opened wide, his mouth stands open and his wings are outstretched. The Angel of History must look just so. His face is turned towards the past. Where we see the appearance of a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe, which unceasingly piles rubble on top of rubble and hurls it before his feet. He would like to pause for a moment so fair [verweilen: a reference to Goethe’s Faust], to awaken the dead and to piece together what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise, it has caught itself up in his wings and is so strong that the Angel can no longer close them. The storm drives him irresistibly into the future, to which his back is turned, while the rubble-heap before him grows sky-high. That which we call progress, is this storm.” www.marxists.org/reference/archive/benjamin/1940/history.htm (accessed January 9, 2019).
3.
Emphasis in original.
4.
Similar to my wording of “enclaves of sameness,” Daniel Bar-Tal and Dikla Antebi speak of the “siege mentality” of communities that have established a sense of collective and competitive victimhood. Such a mentality contributes to a lack of empathizing with the suffering of others (“Siege Mentality in Israel” 1992).
5.
Most translations use the phrase “to stay” here for the German word verweilen. Dennis Redmond (see note 2) translates it as “to pause for a moment so fair.” I chose “to linger” as an alternative.
6.
See Krondorfer, Reconciliation in Global Context (2018); ibid. “Unsettling Empathy: Intercultural Dialogue in the Aftermath of Historical and Cultural Trauma” (2016); “Interkulturelle Erinnerungsarbeit als offener Prozess” (2013a); “Interkulturelle Begegnungsprogramme zum Holocaust” (2010); and Remembrance and Reconciliation (1995). Psychologist and scholar-practitioner Herbert C. Kelman, who has worked in the field of conflict resolution since the 1970s (especially in the Israeli-Palestinian context), describes the kind of “problem-solving workshops” he and a team of social scientists have offered as “microprocesses” in a “private space in which politically involved and often politically influential . . . members of conflicting communities can interact in a nonbinding, confidential way.” Kelman conceives of these workshops as providing “opportunities to penetrate each other’s perspectives; to explore both sides’ needs, fears, priorities, and constraints; and to engage in joint thinking about solutions” (“The Role of National Identity in Conflict Resolution” 2001, 198). There is overlap between Kelman’s and my approach in terms of essential components, such as safe spaces, confidentiality, exploring of perspectives, and attention to needs and fears. But there are also differences. My approach is broader and less focused on solution outcomes. It is not limited to conflict resolution settings for politically influential members. Rather than “thinking about solutions,” as Kelman puts it, my facilitation encourages participants to explore and imagine alternatives to current stalemates.
7.
Though often used synonymously, there is a difference between “intergroup” and “interpersonal” interactions and dialogue. Whereas “intergroup” refers to individual members of one group interacting with individual members of another group, “interpersonal” refers to interactive contact on the basis of personal relationships. As Miles Hewstone and Rupert Brown put it, both terms relate to “actions of individuals” (rather than social or institutional bodies), though “in one case [interpersonal] they are the actions of individuals qua individuals, while in the other [intergroup] they are the actions of individuals qua group members” (“Contact Is Not Enough” 1986b, 14; emphasis in original). See also Miles Hewstone and Ed Cairns, “Social Psychology and Intergroup Conflict” (2001); Rupert Brown and John Turner, “Interpersonal and Intergroup Behavior” (1981); and Henri Tajfel and John Turner, “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict” (1979). When working with groups in conflict, we are clearly talking about “intergroup” dialogue and interactions.
8.
For the dark side of empathy, see Chapter 4 in this book.
9.
Television appearances and coverage include CBS’s “Sunday Morning with Charles Kurault” (November 13, 1988), Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR3), Südwestfunk (SWF3), and Hessischer Rundfunk (HR3). For two essayistic pieces, see Esther Röhr, “Steine sind wie Zeit: Das Jewish German Dance Theater” (Religion Heute 3/4 1989), and Lisa Green, “Jewish German Dance: Jenseits der Sprachlosigkeit” (tanz aktuell: Zeitung für Tanz und Theater 4/VI June 1989). A sample of newspaper reviews includes The Jewish Times (May 1, 1986), The Jewish Exponent (February 27, 1987), Frankfurter Rundschau (October 29, 1988; November 12, 1988), Berliner Volksblatt (November 3, 1988), taz Berlin (November 11, 1988), Nürnberger Zeitung (November 15, 1988), Allgemeine Jüdische Wochenzeitung (December 12, 1988), The Pittsburgh Press (March 30, 1989), The Philadelphia Inquirer (April 2, 1989), Greenwich Time (May 3, 1989), Wiesbadener Tagesblatt (June 16, 1989), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (June 20, 1989), Offenbach Post (June 20, 1989), and taz (July 17, 1989).
10.
These programs are described in more detail in my book Remembrance and Reconciliation (1995).
11.