discourse as practice 11.11.04
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
1/21
Discourse as Practice: Jewish and Palestinian Israelis in a
Dialogue Group.From Speaking To Acting - 2000-2004 1
Miki Motola, PhD., PsychologyOranim College, Israel
Andr Schnberg, M.Soc.Sc., Management Consultant, Board Member, Innovation &Change In Israeli Society
[email protected] [email protected] Harashim 24954 Raanana 43 107
Mitspe Harashim 24954 Kazan 8 Raanana
Israel Israel
Fax: +972 4 - 9802060 Fax: +972 -153-9-743 50 97
1 The Dialogue group which is the subject of this paper was conjointly established in autumn 2000 by Miki Motola and WalidMula, M.A., from Yarka Israel. We thank all the group members for their participation in this venture and for their generouscooperation with our interviewing. Batya (Betsy) Kallus, also one of the group members, helped a lot with editing a late versionof this paper. The ideas presented here do not necessarily represent all or any of the other group members.The significance of this last sentence will be fully appreciated after the reading of the paper.
Discourse as Practice p1
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
2/21
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
3/21
the wake of this war, the so-called Israeli War of Independence (1948), many Arab
Palestinians, considered or considering themselves as hostile to the Jewish State, were
either expelled, thrown out or fled their towns and villages; the historical truth is an open
field of fierce contention between the two sides. For the last years, the counterpart to theJewish Israeli discourse of the War of Liberation ( Milhement HaShihrur ) has been the
Palestinian Naqba the Catastrophe of the Palestinians who lost their homes and
homeland. Beside the efforts to overcome the de-facto, if not de-jure discrimination against
the Arabs in Israel, part of the political and ideological struggle of the Arab minority in
Israel, those last twenty years, has been a struggle about the discourse adequately or
legitimately defining reality and history.
1. The First-Model Dialogue ( Duki ) Groups: The Story of a Failure
For more than 20 years, the Israeli, mainly educational, establishment had founded and
maintained dialogue groups in which Jewish and Arab Israelis met together in order to
get to know each other, to learn about each others cultures, and to establish personal ties
in order to diminish the estrangement between these two sectors of the population, and
strengthen the identification of the non-Jewish part of the population to the state of Israel.
Typically, the groups met at high-schools, and comprised teachers and students, and
sometimes, parents of younger school children. The groups met for a week-end or two, or
for three to at most five meetings, and were especially focused on the eradication of mutual
stereotypes, on one hand, and on the design of better communications between the two
sectors.
Those groups have been derogatorily called duki groups a childish, pejorativediminutive of Du-Kiyum , meaning co-existence, thus pointing to their pseudo-role in
fostering this co-existence. The duki groups typically resulted in short-term catharsis and
feelings of momentary closeness, or, not less frequently, in the feeling that there is no way
to build a bridge between the two communities.
Discourse as Practice p3
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
4/21
The origins of the project in Israel are often linked to the consternation and alarm which
spread within the liberal wing of Zionist Israeli political parties following a 1980 survey of
the attitudes of Israeli youths vis--vis the Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel (Rabinowitz
2001; Har-Even 1985; Maoz 1997). The survey (Zemach 1980) indicated a stereotypicaltendency among Jewish Israeli youngsters to view all Arabs, anywhere within the state of
Israel and beyond, as a menacing and ill-intentioned collective. It also exposed a worrying
level of support for legal and administrative measures which, if ever implemented, would
curb the freedom of Israeli-Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel, and limit their civil and even
human rights.
Most of the programs conducted in Israel under the title of coexistence or dialogue groups
were inspired by the contact theory developed by Allport (1954). This theory suggests
that under several conditions contact between people from belligerent groups can reduce
enmity and prejudices, and brings forth an increase in positive mutual attitudes.
It is not clear when the authorities or the left-of-center-part of the establishment
understood that these groups were not really achieving either their professed, nor their more
undeclared aims. An evaluation research was initiated by one of the organizations which
were very active in these groups. As the results were quite inconclusive the research was
put aside, and those who initiated the research (as well as the Ministry of Education)
refused to publish it (Ophir 2002).
It became quite clear that these groups did not result in any real or long-term change. When
the the right-of-center political leadership of the national religious party Mafdal ) took
over control of the Ministry of Education, governmental and establishment support for those activities ceased. On the contrary, stress was placed on strengthening Jewish identity
and study of Jewish traditions. The October 2000 events in Israel proper (i.e. in the
sovereign regions of Israel, within the Green Line, non-occupied regions, those inhabited
by Palestinian (Arab) Israelis, citizens of the State of Israel, as distinct from the Palestinian
Discourse as Practice p4
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
5/21
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
6/21
Ultimately, the duki field produced two opposing means to break with the status quo. A
social and community-oriented model was created in Neve-Shalom - the only village in
Israel conceived and inhabited in equal number and symmetrical balance of power, by bothIsraeli Arabs and Jews (Halabi 2000). In an apparent paradox, in Neve Shaloms,School
for Peace,(a center for training and encounter between Israeli Jews and Arabs) they favor
uni-ethnic group meetings (Jews and Arabs working separately in different group).In these
homogenous groups they accentuate group identities, empower the Arab participants and
help them develop their cultural and political awareness, in a community environment
which is meticulously built as equal and symmetrical.
Another development, which was quite different if not opposite to Neve Shalom endeavor,
was to merge together Arab and Jews pupils in a common bilingual space. Four schools
were created in Israel in which pupils were thought by Arab and Jewish teachers in Hebrew
and Arabic. These represent a real challenge to the main-stream educational system given
that, normally, or normatively, Israeli Arab/Palestinian and Jewish children study in two
separate systems of education.
But it is interesting to notice that in both solutions, the vision of ethnic/political identities
functions quite similarly. Neve-Shalom Primary School purposely empowers the Arabs
children in their Arabic identity, both in its cultural and political components. Therefore it
is not surprising that they do not question the issue of identity. During the outbreak of the
Intifada, there were organized discussions about identity among the parents in the
Bilingual Schools established in the Galilee and Jerusalem among. The schools believed
that it was not possible to discuss identity effectively with the children so the topic wasraised among the parents. They will probably say that they cannot afford the luxury as a
minority of raise doubts and hence taking the risk of weakening the Arabs children
positions facing the Jews.
Discourse as Practice p6
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
7/21
Paradoxically parents in the bilingual school, find themselves reacting in a similar way.
Normally parents in these schools are moderate, liberal and secular. But often they have to
deal with religious and national contents, much more than they would do in the main-
stream schools. It is as if the space of these bi-lingual schools polarized their identity andthey were bound in their way to define themselves following the traditional polarized way.
As we can see these two options, enhancing political awareness in homogenous ethnic
groups or educating children in a bi-lingual bi-ethnical environment, challenge the outside
reality. On other hand we can question the limit of these lines of action since, it seems, that
they do not defy the essentialist perspective of national/ethnic identity.
Our hypothesis is that a psychological, or socio-psychological, approach cannot
realistically or effectively deal with basic, structural, domination problems. In our view, the
critical question is not which approach is used in the facilitation of the group -
psychoanalytical or more ego-related - as long as it stays within the framework of a
group or even group relations approach. In the view presented here, the problematic of
the Arab-Jewish position in Israel is not a consequence of psychological differences.
Differences- if there are such are a consequence of the fundamental existential position of
two structural groups and their real interests (see J. Habermas, 1987 not only
communication, but interests as a substratum). The crucial classificatory variable, in any
relationship or relatedness between Jews and Arabs/Israeli Palestinians in Israel, is that of
Jewish supremacy and domination. All other differences, or similarities, between them are
secondary.
Group-relations activities, either around the Tavistock or the NTL models (for example,Golombiewski, 1989), have usually been seen as a microcosmic representation of the social
macrocosm (see, for example, Philip Slater, 1966; or so many articles at ISPSO
conferences; for a critical view, see A.Schonberg, 1998). The laboratory model is clearly
unfit to deal with structural or sociological issues as it builds a wholly artificial
Discourse as Practice p7
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
8/21
environment. As a microcosm, it is unfit as well to truly represent the world, even as
regards the most universal psychological or psycho-social dimensions as authority,
dependency, cooperation, envy, anxiety, etc. In the laboratory, the peculiar sociological,
ethnic, or even gender conditions that characterizes reality cannot be replicated in anysatisfactory manner. In fact, this laboratory views aims at creating conditions in which
universal or personal dimensions are examined. In the issue we tackle here personal is
personal is personal. It cannot claim to represent or deal with sociological issues. Likewise,
the universal. If it is universal, and common to every human beings- it ceases to enable
any substantial, sociological, ethnic, religious, etc. differentiating.
The Leicester-Tavistock model claims to enable a better representation of the world. For
example, the argument goes that the structure of management of a conference is somehow a
representation or a duplicate of the political or dominance arrangements in society in such
a matter that working with resistance, for example, could be easily interpreted or
manipulated by the staff as a personal, psychoanalytic resistance, and not as the attempt of
political emancipation by a representative of a dominated minority (see Philip Boxers
analysis, for example 1994; or Brian Palmer, 2001). The very notion of representative, in
staff or membership, of a group or sector in the society at large, stresses and deepens the
dilemma rather than solving it. It is as if we play in reality, and then mimic reality, and
then forget that we are outside reality it has become hyper reality (see Umberto Eco,
1983; and Jean Baudrillard 1998, 2001, on simulation, simulacre and hyper reality).
For example, opening the Directorate to observation or negotiations during the
organizational event at a Tavistock-Leicester conference accurately enables members to
deal with their own, personal, projections and fantasies about management, authority,leadership, etc. Trying to apply those learnings and insights to an understanding of the
broader society or organization of which the conference is but a part might be a frequent
leap, but it is nevertheless a leap. With all we know about transference, contra-transference,
projection, projective identification, etc. can we really expect that any learning can be done
Discourse as Practice p8
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
9/21
on the very dimensions of dominance and identity, when structural, sociological, political
reality impinges on the world of phantasies that we create or enable in a Conference?
Even if political relations (not relationships) can be examined in a Conference, there are
bound to be interpreted in a personal way, a-symmetrically, and out of the actual,sociological and political context.
Can we create a space, a potential space, where it would be possible to deal with
these political and sociological relations in a not-only-personal manner? When we talk
about building a space we first of all mean to widen our conceptual field or broaden our
working concepts. Secondly, we speak about our experience of designing a new group
setting in accordance with the challenge of breaking the conservative model of the duki
groups.
To understand the logic of our venture one has to go beyond disciplinary frontiers between
psychoanalysis and sociology. In this logic we found very interesting to compare the notion
of field in the sociology of Bourdieu and the potential space conceptualized by
Winnicott.
A field, according to Bourdieu (1992), consists of a set of objective, historical relations
between positions anchored in a certain form of power or capital. The literary, academic,
artistic, scientific, psychoanalytic (and so on) fields are all spaces of conflicts and
competition. They are all encompassed by the field of power which can be considered as a
meta field. Every field is characterized by its traditions, implicit and explicit norms, its
orthodoxies and heresies, the legitimized issues to deal with and by rules that permit people
to engage in it. A field is not a simply dead structure but a space of play which exists assuch only to the extent that players enter into it who believe in and actively pursue the
prizes it offers. In others words people have to participate to the fields illusions. Each
field wrote Bourdieu calls forth and gives life to a specific form of interest, a specific
illusion, as tacit recognition of the value of the stakes of the game and as practical mastery
Discourse as Practice p9
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
10/21
of its rules. The notion of field replaces the more abstract concepts of society and social
classes. People are the product of their field, which mean they are mold by the time, space
and rules-of-the-game where and when they grew up. They develop a certain habitus,
which is a set of historical relations deposited within individuals bodies in the form of mental and corporal schemata of perception, appreciation, and action. During their
trajectories, social agents cross different fields simultaneously or consecutively, and each
time there is a silent and profound work of adaptation, conversion, and other changes in
these schemata that occur within a dynamic of complicity between the line of power of the
field (its structure) and the plasticity or rigidity of the habitus.
We can observe in practice this rather abstract description when we observe the duki
encounter groups. Participants will act and react on one level according to universal
features, such as anxieties, transferences, projections, identifications. On another level they
will differ according to their social trajectories in different fields (domestic, education
etc) and in the field of power.
Arabs and Jews differ in their behaviors in the duki setting not because of some essential
or ethnic characteristics but because they express deep rooted modes of thinking
embodied during their trajectories in a violent and polarized field of power.
For instance practitioners in dialogue groups often observe that when facilitators solicit
personal and emotional experience in the group work, Jewish participants have no
difficulties to give themselves to the task while Israeli-Arabs participants, especially men,
have trouble complying as they prefer a more collective mode of speaking. At first glance
one can suppose that a psychological explanation will be enough. The collective society in
which Arab children are raised, compared to the individualistic Jewish society mightexplain this difference (Dwairy 1998). The fact that in other cultures (Weiss 2001) we find
similar interactions when dealing with minority/majority encounters might suggest that not
psychological differences but rather power relations are at the source of such differences.
The personal testimony of an Arab psychology professor, a very self-confident person, can
Discourse as Practice p10
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
11/21
help deepen our understanding of the issue. He told us that he stopped participating in
"duki" groups because he felt inauthentic in groups with Jewish participants. This feeling
was caused, firstly, because he felt compelled to join an Arab unified stand facing the Jews,
so that there was no more space left for authentic personal positions. Secondly, he felt thateven with radical, leftist Jews, there were limits to the common discussion - implicit
borders, gently but evidently imposed by the Jewish participants. These limits generally
concerned issues related to the 1948 war, the Nakba and the position of Arab refugees
inside Israel. We can interpret the reactions of this socially successful and well connected
intellectual as a reaction to a subtle symbolic violence (Bourdieu 2001). It is apparently
what happens to most Arab intellectuals in Israel, and that subtle, symbolic violence creates
a deep feeling of alienation and anger. Thanks to his professional abilities he managed to
deal with these sentiments, and suppress them in his every day life. In the encounter groups
he found himself trapped. In the one hand he could no more ignore these suppressed
affects, in the other one he could not afford to express them without breaking a kind of
status quo he reached internally and externally. Political-correctness functioned, as well, as
a censoring mechanism.
As we established this dialogue group, we were confronted, therefore, with the following
question. Is it possible to create a space, a potential space, in the Winnicotian sense, where
people will be free to play with their identities? To examine different components of their
own selves? To reexamine their attitudes without becoming frozen in superficial or
politically-correct stands? Would it be possible for Israeli Arabs and Jews to authentically
examine their thoughts, emotions and actions - without any kind of limitations?
3. Another Model: A New Potential Space
Discourse as Practice p11
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
12/21
The outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, in the territories of the Palestinian Authority, has
had tremendous implications in the realm of Palestinian-Israeli relations, and those
pertaining to the relations within Israel itself, between Israeli Arabs and Jews. Stemming
out of frustration about the discriminatory practices of the government as against the Arabminority, and as an act of solidarity with the Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories,
and just after they had launched the second, Al-Aqsa, Intifada, in October 2000, there were
a host of violent demonstrations by Israeli Arabs,. Those manifestations, inside Israel, were
fiercely and violently repressed by the Israeli police, who fired at the demonstrators, killing
13 people. For example, the establishment of road blocks in numerous communities in the
Galilee, cut off the lines of communication among Jewish Israelis living alongside Arab
communities. Jews who had for years lived peacefully and even were friendly with their
Arab neighbors felt endangered. The situation had become so delicate that even those more
liberal, radical or leftist Jews who had been involved in dialogue and co-existence, and
active worked with Israeli Arabs on citizenship-equality issues, felt endangered and
threatened. The memories and associations which were raised by those events, both in the
press and among people in their communities, directly linked the October 2000 situation to
what had happened during the 1948-49 War of Independence. Jews, who for years had
shopped and gone on outings in Arab villages, stopped going into Arab villages and towns,
and a general climate of suspicion and mistrust arose among, or between, former friends
and neighbors.
As a response to those fierce October 2000 manifestations within the 1967 borders of
Israel and the ensuing crisis of confidence between Jews and Arabs, two Jewish and
Palestinian Israeli friends from the Galilee, decided to assemble a number of professionalsin the fields of education, social work and organizational consultation. They initiated a
group which would study the discourse of Arab-Jewish Israeli dialogue, and seek ways to
bring some change in the Israeli situation. The two founders recruited all of the group
members. At its height, the group had about 25 members which were comprised of an equal
Discourse as Practice p12
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
13/21
number of Jewish and Arab men and women. Each meeting was facilitated and organized
by an Arab and Jewish co-organizer-facilitator, and each session raised issues and subjects
that were decided on by the shifting facilitation team. No outside consultant was hired.
One basic outcome of this group was that most of its members became engaged inongoing Jewish-Arab activities beyond the frame of dialogue groups. For example: young
leadership development among Arab women; a mixed Jewish-Arab school; consolidation
of various non-Jewish community organizations; the resolution of jurisdictional conflicts
between Arab and Jewish villages; the establishment of multi-cultural study groups in
schools, colleges and university; etc.
Through the story of this group, and through the analysis of open-ended interviews with its
members, we can show how they explain the outcomes and characteristics of this group:
1. The group continued meeting for four years;
2. It succeeded in focusing on the primary, hurtful contact points between
Jewish and Palestinian Israelis;
3. It did not engage in politically correct discourse;
4. The group received a contract from the Israeli Police, to conduct a series of
workshops on Jewish-Arab relations at the Police Academy;
5. Separately, most members of the group developed different and empowered
forms of action and work in the domain of Jewish-Arab relations in Israel ;
6. During the process, some basic attitudes were changed while others were not.
This dialogue group was formed quite differently from the typically recognized pattern of
Duki groups. It was a wholly spontaneous organization, neither sponsored nor supported by any of the multiple organizations dealing with/funding/living off the Arab-Jewish
relations in Israel. The group was founded by two friends and colleagues.
This group had no official name. In one of its early meetings, the venue was indicated by
a sheet of white paper, taped to the door of the building where the group was meeting, with
Discourse as Practice p13
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
14/21
the words: Forum Walid and an arrow pointing to the room. It is not clear who wrote
this, and why this name was used to identity it. However, from then on, the Forum was
mainly called Forum Walid.
The nature and functioning of this Forum were molded through a series of decisions andsteps, whose reasons were not always clarified and whose consequences were not always
foreseen:
1. First of all, this group was not at all representative of the Israeli society, neither by its
numerical composition (Arabs in Israel amount to about 20% and our group was
roughly composed of half Jews and half Arab/Palestinian Israelis); neither by the
socio-economic level of the members; nor by their political orientation none of the
members are right-wing. The initiators tried to create a group where people from
different sub-groups would be represented. Hence the Arab group was composed of
Christian, Druse and Moslem Arabs and the Jewish group was composed mostly of
secular Sabra (Jewish Israelis born in Israel) participants and two religious people,
both of whom were immigrants from the United States: a conservative rabbi who
arrived in Israel 20 years ago from the United States, and a religious woman,
engaged in philanthropic efforts on behalf of Arab-Jewish relations. There were two
additional immigrants, and the remaining members were native Israelis. The
categorization of the participants is not at all trivial; it has profound roots and
tremendous implications. We will discuss some of those political implications during
the presentation..
2. There was no attempt whatsoever to arrive at a common, or even similar, position
about any issue. There was no thrust towards consensus, and no real place for political correctness. Speech was uncensured. Sometimes we used very sharp
expressions; we did not tinker with what we thought. We used direct speech, and
unambiguous formulas
Discourse as Practice p14
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
15/21
3. The Forum was facilitated by two members, in a kind of rotation pattern, every
meeting by two other members, and preferably (and mostly) one Palestinian and one
Jew. As people came from various backgrounds and professional domains, the
consultation-facilitation style shifted from meeting to meeting. Some consultants-facilitators used structured exercises, and others more open sessions; some were
directive, and others more reflective. We believe that these decisions contributed to
the robustness, continuity, and ultimate practicality of this group, as against the
traditional Duki groups.
4. Two main aims were put forward from the beginning: learning from the groups
here and now interaction, learning from the members insights, and learning from
the day-to-day interaction with the external world. Therefore when the first
opportunity arose to work together, we engaged most of the members of the group in
a tentative long-term intervention at the Police Academy. This projects aim was to
humanize the attitude of policemen and policewomen toward the Arab population
in Israel. The most important work was done with the policemen and policewomen
recruited as police officers. Working together in the field intensified the relationships
between the participants and raised issues that were then addressed during the
meetings.
5. The group worked mostly in a dual-ethnic setting (there were only a very small
number of short meetings of homogenous sub groups). The assumption was that
the dynamic of cultural identities can be better understood when they are studied in
their boundaries rather than in their core or essence (Barth 1998 ). Indeed we
believe, also following the traditional Tavistock model, that ethnical/cultural/political identities are not essential entities, rather, they are flexible and
evolving products of interactions in changing contexts and different fields.
Discourse as Practice p15
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
16/21
We suppose that the flexible and open setting in which all of the participants felt they
could engage and be responsible one to the other, and to their own feelings of identity -
helped us create an atmosphere of confidence quite rapidly,. Confidence was the basic
component of this potential space created by the group. In this potential space and time, themost difficult issues were dealt with: for instance some of the meetings were held during or
just after the most terrible and bloody events, either of terrorist suicidal attacks in Israel, or
bloody Israeli retaliation or police actions within the occupied territories, or the 9/11
attacks. In those meetings, the participants could play and experiment deeply with the
different components of their own identities.
Following are some reflections about the link between the structural characteristics, the
methodology we applied and the outcomes we achieved.
1. The fact that this group was wholly voluntary, and completely independent of any
establishment , enabled it not to fall into the dynamics of the Israeli reality where
Jews have the position of domination, and thus can either exploit this situation in the
group, or apologize for it, or even worse, deny it. The fact that this group was not a
microcosm of Israeli society enabled an openness that would not have been possible
had the group been entrenched in reality. In fact, it might be said that the
traditional Duki groups, or the general view of a group as a representative of reality
(as in the traditional Tavistock approach) in fact creates an hyperreality
(Baudrillard), in which we actually lose contact with reality, and, in fact, put
ourselves in a situation in which it becomes impossible to change that reality, so that
every thought and action in fact, and paradoxically, reinforce it. This post-modern
condition, following Baudrillard, prevents people to bring forth a change in the post-modern reality, and defuses the radical potential implied in any critical attitude.
2. In our group, we developed the basis of what one member called a new
community . We believe it is more than the typical closeness and sense of common
humanity that usually appear during group dynamics, even when people of opposing
Discourse as Practice p16
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
17/21
and estranged positions meet together. There, people usually develop a sympathetic
sensibility which evolves from the mere, novel friction and continuous presence.
They discover that, in fact, all human beings are human beings. But, this is done at
the price of hiding or minimizing the weight of their social/sociological dimension.It is a way - bridging across differences, and meeting on the basic, human level - to
blind oneself to social realities. This is a fundamentally conservative stance, hidden
under sheer liberal humanity, which ultimately entrenches the most inhuman
inequalities and injustices.
This sense of new community cannot either be equated with the feelings
experienced in closed groups, groups of survivors or of those who had had together
the same quasi-magic experience, and who feel that they cannot really communicate
with those that were not there, or who feel estranged from the normal environment,
because of the peculiarity of their experience. The feelings experienced in this group
were those of people who share a quite but not exactly similar - common distrust
concerning the way reality is constructed by the establishment, in government or
political parties or institutionalized activities. This community feels that it is not a
part of the main-stream or establishment, that it has to take a stand and act in order to
change things - not only inside oneself, but especially in the outside world.
3. The puzzle of Identity in a potential space . We, briefly, present here, three reports of
different participants.
In one of the first meeting Samira, an Arab Druse woman angrily expressed
the feeling of being a stranger in her own home. She referred to the fact that
while walking in the forest near her home she sees Jewish tourists occupyingthe area every weekend. One year later in, another context, she sadly expressed
her despair at being identified and labeled as a Druze. It was clear that at this
moment she had enough with the issue of culture and identity. This testimony
exemplifies the tension existing between a political form of self-identity and a
Discourse as Practice p17
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
18/21
more complex and personal self-description where more complex issues have
to be considered (for instance, being a woman in a conservative Arab society).
On another occasion, after a trip to Amman, she reported her distress
concerning the limitation of freedom she felt in an Arab country and said thatshe preferred to live in Israel where there is well-established discrimination
against the Arabs, but where she can fully experience personal freedom as a
woman.
David, a Jewish participant, expressed his surprise at seeing that while he
considered himself a radical leftist, he found himself, when confronting the
Arab narratives, defending quite Zionist, if not nationalist standpoints. This
example shows the complexity, and the mutual interdependence of the
processes occurring during the group meetings.
Adam, a religious Jew, discovered the tension existing between Judaism as a
humanistic religion and Judaism as a political assertion for Jewish sovereignty
over the land of Israel. He reflected upon the risk that Jewish sovereignty
might lead to immoral actions (for instance speaking about the transfer of
Arabs from the occupied territories). He asserted that in this case, a radical
separation between Judaism as a religion and Judaism as politics (which
means Zionism) must be carried out. He would probably choose to be a
religious Jew living in pluralistic civil society.
It is interesting to mention that Samira and Adam both asserted that they most
likely would not risk sharing their experiences and reflections with their
neighbors, family, and friends.
Discourse as Practice p18
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
19/21
4. From Discourse to Practice.
Most of the people who participated in this dialogue group are now actively engaged in,
if not leading, various projects that concern Arab and Jewish relationships. Some of the participants began their engagement in these activities as a result of the groups work.
Those who were in the field before the group was launched said they engage in their
work with a deeper understanding of the issues in stake, with more articulation, and with
much fewer restrictions. They assert that they have been able to spell out their aims
more clearly because the work we have done together.
5. Instead of a conclusion
The venture we just told you about is not finished. Participants in this group are active in
different projects, some of them are working together, other are separately engaged on
various activities, and continue their ongoing reflection. Most of the people have a warm
feeling toward the group; they feel that the meetings have helped them cross in a
meaningful way through the especially harsh, last four years in Israel,. Participants testify
that the work with the group has helped them sharpen their vision and clarify their own
stands, positions, beliefs, feelings all of which are part of what is commonly considered
as identity.
We can end this report with the words of one of the female participants. She asserted that
now she feels the urge to act and change reality for three reasons:
First, she is very concerned and pessimistic about the rapid degradation of the political
situation. Second, she is optimistic because she feels things can change. Third, she feelsthat she knows better what has to be done in order to bring forth these changes.
Discourse as Practice p19
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
20/21
-
8/6/2019 Discourse as Practice 11.11.04
21/21
Motola, M, 1998. Social habitus and future plans. In Y-E. Nurmi (ed.) Adolescents, cultures and conflicts: growing up in contemporary Europe . NewYork: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Mula, W. 1999 . Druze Education in Israel as a Political Means for Underdevelopment and State Control of an Ethnic Minority. Clark UniversityM.A. Thesis Ophir, A. 2002, Jewish-Arabic Co-existence: Politics of Rationality, DemocraticCulture,Tel Aviv. (Hebrew)Palmer, B. 2001. The Tavistock Paradigm: Inside, Outside and Beyond , InHinshelwood R. and Marco Chiesa (eds), Towards a Psychoanalytic Social
Psychology , Taylor & FrancisRabinowitz, D. 2001. Natives with jackets and degrees. "Othering,objectification and the role of Palestinians in the co-existence field in Israel".Tel-Aviv.Slater, P . 1966. Microcosm; Structural, Psychological, & Religious Evolution inGroups , New York: Wiley.Schonberg, A.1998. Two Basic Assumptions in the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations, www.ispso.org/Symposia/Jerusalem/1998schonberg.htmWeiss, A. 2001. Power and Difference: An Extended Model for the ConflictPotentials in the Negotiation of Intercultural Conflicts. (Unpublished)Zemach, M. 1980. Attitudes of the Jewish majority in Israel towards the Arabminority . Jerusalem: Van-Leer Foundation. (In Hebrew)
http://www.brl.com/PaperDetail.php?p_id=74http://www.brl.com/PaperDetail.php?p_id=74