Chapter 11
Can history heal trauma?
The role of history education in
reconciliation processes
History education plays a crucial role in the formation of the concepts of the society during processes of reconciliation and peacebuilding, especially in societies with a long history of conflict, violence, and mistrust among ethnic and religious groups. The politics of reconciliation presented in historic narratives affect psychological healing and recovery on a personal level. Thus, history education in post-conflict societies is one of the major mechanisms that can unite political and social reconciliation with the processes of individual healing and recovery. History education as a social practice of construction of socio-political memories influences public discourse and supports a specific ethno-political order at the same time developing personal values, perceptions, and beliefs. Seixas (2000) defined the main function of history education as providing identity, cohesion, and social purpose. Therefore, history education can address the collective traumas and contribute to reconciliation through the development of a common inclusive identity, facilitation of social cohesion, and development of a compelling moral framework. The accountability for the past and the rewriting of history to include different perspectives, voices, and understandings of previous violent actions serve as a platform for the society to move forward. The acknowledgment of the past events and the responsibilities of perpetrators is critical for the processes of reconciliation.
History textbooks can connect current events, policies, and decisions with the past in the context of social purpose: ideas of sovereignty, human rights, or equality. Unfortunately, history education can also completely avoid discussion of trauma and create a collective and unifying “us” based on the idea of “forgive and forget” or shape perception of differences between groups by portraying other groups as allies or enemies and defining contradictions between Us and Them. Furthermore, school textbooks often focus on times of war and suffering over times of peaceful coexistence between two groups, and as Adwan and Bar-On (2007: 148) suggest:
Teachers are put in the position of being cultural emissaries of the nation: they are expected to emphasize the goodness of their country's side and the evil of the other country. Teachers are trained to teach their own narrative, to defend and to legitimize it and to make sure their pupils accept it.
Although programs on improving history education developed by the Council of Europe, the Eckert Institute for international textbook research (GEI), the Facing History project, the European Standing Conference of History Teachers’ Associations (EUROCLIO) and other national and international organizations provide sufficient information about the reduction of negative perceptions and xenophobia, they shed considerably less light on the impact of history education on structural components of identity formation and trauma healing. History education in conflict and post-conflict societies often serves as a tool for shaping differences between groups and strengthening negative perceptions of the out-group together with increasing loyalty and submission to the in-group. The understanding of the role of history curricula in the processes of formation and re-definition of identity and trauma healing provides insights into the ways through which such history textbooks could be revised and modified. Moreover, such analysis opens perspectives on the use of ideological constructs and historic discourses in the processes of peacebuilding and reconciliation.
History education in post-conflict societies faces the complex task of reconciling the wrongdoings of all parties: “In most societies recovering from violence, questions of how to deal with the past are acute, especially when the past involves memories of death, suffering, and destruction so widespread that a high percentage of the population is affected” (Cole 2007: 1). Reconciliation, apology and forgiveness become vital factors in the restoration of a society and in the promotion of tolerance and, thus, are a critical task of history education. Yet, the teaching about conflicts of the past is often debated:
Controversial issues which are socially divisive are usually also sensitive: they upset or disturb people's sensitivities; they call on people's loyalties; they arouse people's prejudices … They are sensitive because they relate to particularly painful, tragic, humiliating or divisive times in a country's past, and there is a fear or concern that reference to them in history lessons might renew old wounds and divisions and bring back too many painful memories.
Stradling 2001: 100
The presentation of the past poses serious challenges for countries, but ignoring history can lead to even more severe problems:
Of course it is possible to get out of one's own past, re-write one's history, but it is impossible to change the facts that have already taken place. What is done cannot be undone. The society that does not want to understand and accept its own past is condemned to repeating it some time in the future. Therefore, it endangers the fate of future generations.
UNITED 2003
History curricula should highlight the ways in which all groups within a society have suffered, include discussions of why and how these groups were dehumanized and demonized, and show how acts of discrimination and violence were justified. History textbooks should not deny or disregard the antagonism and cruel actions committed by various groups; only acknowledgement and understanding of the roots and affects of conflict can undermine harmful nationalistic and ethnocentric ideologies. History curricula should present “memories of the past … for everyone in a community to own up to – if it is not to be a community forever divided by clashing assessments of the crimes of ancestors” (Shriver 1995: 4). Such curricula can develop the basis for the prevention of possible future acts of aggression, hostility and dominance by any state or actor.
The presentation of history is especially difficult if both sides have diverging points of view and the very idea of historic truth has become disputed:
Although post-conflict societies could benefit from accounts of history that play down the differences between former enemies, some truths do exist: the so-called forensic truths, the “who did what to whom” facts that human rights investigators seek to illuminate. Denying them results in dangerous moral relativism – for example, equating mass killings by a state's military and police forces with fewer killings by guerrillas or resistance groups, as in South Africa or Guatemala.
Cole and Barsalou 2006: 9
To find sufficient common ground for former enemies it is important to emphasize the shared future of all groups within the society.
To transform post-conflict societies, history curricula should compliment the reconciliation process, including acknowledgement, truth-telling, apology, repair and democratization (Cole 2007). One of the tasks of history education is to recognize the victims of violence and repression, as well as their suffering and need for justice. Younger generations have to understand the complex – and sometimes controversial – relationship between justice and reconciliation, which can lead to further clashes in societies recovering from conflict. The quest for justice and prosecution of perpetrators can jeopardize fragile processes of reconciliation and endanger efforts to foster a dialogue among former enemy groups in a society. At the same time, reconciliation would not be complete without some forms of punishment and retribution for past crimes committed. These types of controversies should not be ignored or undermined and must be presented in history textbooks. The processes of democratization provide the basis for open discussions about the positions of victims and perpetrators and policies toward reconciliation.
During the past decade, common history projects were introduced as a new approach for trauma healing and reconciliation. Common history projects can provide an optimistic forecast for a shared future based on an understanding and acknowledgement of past issues and relations between them. Common history projects perhaps became one of the best vehicles through which to address issues of victimization and violence and create mutual understanding between societies formerly engaged in conflict. Thus, through common history textbook projects, history education can contribute to the trauma healing and reconciliation processes in post-conflict societies.
Furthermore, in post-conflict societies in which political and diplomatic approaches are not always successful, history education can encourage dialogues within and between communities. Common history textbooks encourage future generations of leaders to foster partnerships and good relations with neighbors in their region. History curricula that promote respect for other nations’ voices and perspectives can profoundly transform and strengthen relationships between states; they destroy old stereotypes of enemies and endorses tolerance, mutual understandings and future cooperation in the region. While it is very difficult to revise historical narratives in weak states or regions that are still enmeshed in conflict, many political leaders in post-conflict states have recognized that efforts to revise biased historical narratives can help heal traumas and improve the relationship between two former enemies. Once violence subsides and states become more secure and confident, citizens are better prepared to examine their history with more scrutiny (Newsom 1999). As stressed by Adwan and Bar-On (2007: 155), children are better able to embrace more than one narrative from their early stages of development, but this capacity generally declines with the onset of adulthood. Thus, teaching multiple narratives through history curricula might be one of the most effective ways of trauma healing and reconciliation.
The following discussion offers a look at some notable projects that have been launched in an effort to help encourage reconciliation between societies that have emerged from recent conflict. In addition to revealing the various partnerships and materials that have resulted from such international collaborations, the chapter highlights some of the challenges and successes associated with each of these projects. This analysis is not meant to be all-inclusive when it comes to collaborative history projects, but, rather, is meant to provide the reader with a background to some major projects that have occurred in various post-conflict societies around the world.
Southeast Europe
In southeastern Europe, a joint history project has been underway since 2000. The Coordination of Textbook Research, Development and Textbook Comparison in South-East Europe is a project that found its roots in the Stability Pact for South-East Europe and was designed as a mechanism through which to enhance cooperation and communication among states in the region. The states involved in the project include: Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro and Slovenia. In addition to involving a significant level of state cooperation, the project also involves the collaboration of several organizations and individuals with relevant expertise on this type of project, including: teachers, scholars, educational ministries, academic institutes, curriculum specialists, textbook authors and editors, a number of international organizations such as GEI, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), EUROCLIO, the Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe (CDRSEE), Allianz Kulturstiftung and the Council of Europe (GEI, n.d.b).
The Joint History Project seeks to bring a more multicultural perspective to history curricula in Southeast Europe. The project is made up of two committees – the History Education Committee and the Academic Committee – with members from all countries involved in the project; participants include curricula experts, textbook authors, academics, historians, teachers, researchers, officials from the education ministries of participating states, editors and translators. Much of the work of the Joint History Project is based on the research and recommendations of rotating scholars from Southeast Europe and the results of conferences and workshops that focus on various instructive and historical topics and seek to bridge the gap between academics and practitioners, (GEI, n.d.b). Documents and sources from all participating countries are used in the development of the textbooks and teaching workshops. Ultimately, the CDRSEE intends to produce the textbook in all the languages of the participating states and then to supplement the textbooks with teaching workshops in an effort to make sure that “the project is truly ‘owned’ by the people who it is for: the teachers and students of the region,” (CDRSEE n.d.a). According to GEI (n.d.b), the project “wishes to lend support to the diverse processes of local educational reforms in primary and secondary education, as well as promote the incorporation and integration of South-East Europe in the wider European educational agenda.” Additionally, GEI (n.d.b) shows, “the project aims at enhancing the transfer of new didactical and pedagogical know-how and skills in the fields of history, geography and civics.” Christina Koulouri, the chairperson of the History Education Committee of the Joint History Project, suggests that true change in history curricula is the responsibility of the governments of the participating states: “We are trying to approach them and make our work known. In each country we have formed a nucleus of people who can act as multipliers but still there is a lot of work to be done” (CDRSEE n.d.b). Furthermore, as put by the CDRSEE, “the [Joint History Project] also works with teachers’ groups on advocacy with both local and central authorities and in these ways, helps to empower teachers as potential agents of change and to participate in a democratic system themselves,” (CDRSEE n.d.a). In other words, the individuals participating in the project are viewed as vehicles through which to promote change within their home countries.
The four textbooks that have been produced by the CDRSEE are also viewed as agents of change in that they are designed to revolutionize the ways in which students in all participating countries think about the history of the region. Thus, the textbooks present some of the most controversial historical events in Southeast Europe from different perspectives in an effort to challenge the various biased narratives that exist within the region and to promote processes of trauma healing and reconciliation. The historical themes covered in the textbooks are as follows: the Ottoman Empire; nations and states in Southeast Europe; the Balkan Wars; and World War II, (CDRSEE n.d.c). The textbooks are currently available in English, Greek and Serbian and will be available in Albanian, Croatian, Macedonian and Bosnian in the near future. Each of the four textbooks that have been produced by the CDRSEE has been thoroughly assessed and edited by independent historians and teachers from the region who participated in the CDRSEE's workshops. Because the way that history is presented in the textbooks is so different from what teachers and students have been familiar with in the past, the textbooks are accompanied by training and ongoing support for teachers. As Itano (2007) notes, for those organizing the project it is “not just a matter of putting better books into teachers” hands. It requires them to begin teaching in an entirely new way. The joint history project wants students to analyse the past for themselves. With its focus on cultural and social history, it tries to humanize groups who may have often been thought of as enemies.
Koulouri suggests that the already daunting task of writing a common history textbook for Southeast Europe was made more difficult due to the diverse linguistic and religious backgrounds of the region. Says Koulouri:
We should of course stress on a common history of the region but this new history should not be a new construction which would replace the national histories. It is rather a new interpretation of the national pasts based on a common Balkan cultural and institutional heritage. And it implies the introduction in history teaching of supra-national elements as a counter-weight to ethnocentric or even nationalistic historical narratives
CDRSEE n.d.b
The Joint History Project in Southeast Europe is built on the belief that the first step to challenging biased dominant narratives is to offer alternative narratives or to provide modified versions of familiar narratives; rather than attempting to fully replace existing narratives, reinterpreted or alternative narratives are offered in an effort to help students look at historical events from a variety of perspectives. Acknowledging traumas and wrongdoings is one of the first steps toward ultimately accepting a common historical narrative. Thus, as Kourouri remarks: “We try to keep in mind that history teaching is a long-term investment where results cannot be achieved immediately. It is however an investment that deserves our patience” (CDRSEE n.d.b).
Although the Joint History Project has successfully produced the four aforementioned textbooks, the project has faced many challenges throughout various stages. Funding has proven to be a problem and has, in particular, delayed the process of translating the textbooks into the remaining languages of the region and the training of teachers intending to use the textbook. The CDRSEE's director, Nenad Sebek, notes that funding problems may be due to the fact that donors appear to be losing interest in the project, despite the lingering tensions in the region (Itano 2007). Another challenge facing the project is the declining support of the Serbian government. In Serbia, the process of reforming national educational programs has been significantly affected by internal political strife and instability (GEI, n.d.b), which has made Serbian participation in the Joint History Project inconsistent and unreliable. Furthermore, the Serbian government, which originally supported the textbooks of the Joint History Project, withdrew its support after accusations were made about the alleged anti-Serbian nature of the books and their editor. In another example, Greek nationalist groups and the Greek Orthodox Church have accused the Joint History Project textbooks of downplaying the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire and have demanded that the textbooks be removed from the history curricula in Greek schools (Itano 2007). In addition to such political problems, those tasked with producing the textbooks have struggled with issues such as what language should be used in the text, how much of an attempt should be made to address recent conflicts and how to approach issues pertaining to religion during certain historical periods (Low-Beer 2003). Low-Beer (2003) notes:
In relation to the curriculum, agreement has been reached on a Common Core in international history. But, so far, it has proved impossible to achieve in national history. In other countries, curriculum experts have also found that, whatever selection is made of history for school, national history always provokes disagreement and controversy – much more than in other school subjects.
Despite these challenges, the project has shown some noteworthy successes. GEI (n.d.b) notes, for example, that the program for rotating scholars:
… turned out to be one of the successful means of creating a sustainable training system for the textbook authors. The grant holders were able to develop networks with other grant holders from South-Eastern Europe alongside their own research, thus fulfilling one of the three main goals of the project.
Another success of the Joint History Project has been the initiation of a new generation of textbooks for Bosnia and Herzegovina that began in 2006. While GEI notes that the project is still “a work in progress,” early stages of the new textbook development “demonstrate a clear improvement in the textbooks, particularly regarding methodical and didactical issues” (GEI n.d.b). Those involved with the creation of the textbook are aware of the challenges that accompany the teaching of different historical narratives and have attempted to create teaching materials that acknowledge such challenges. According to Low-Beer (2003):
The idea of a Common Core did not mean that all conceptions and views must be harmonised, what was needed was that the different conceptions existing in Bosnia and Herzegovina should all be acknowledged. It should be possible for all views to be discussed and debated openly in classrooms and elsewhere. Ideas of putting a European dimension into education were circulating, but this did not mean losing national perspectives, but recognising that there were a range and variety of views.
Israel and Palestine
Perhaps one of the most interesting joint history projects is the collaboration between Israeli and Palestinian scholars that began in 2002. Not long after the onset of the second Intifada, the Peace Research Institute in the Middle East (PRIME) launched the unique Shared History Project, which seeks to present to high school students with both the Israeli and Palestinian narratives about significant historical events. The goal of the project is to acknowledge traumas and increase understanding between Israelis and Palestinians by presenting students from each group with two different narratives about common events. The project was developed by PRIME's cofounders, Sami Adwan – a Palestinian professor – and Dan Bar-On – an Israeli professor – and received support from the Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research (GEI) in Germany and the United States Institute of Peace. Understanding that the project was launching during a time of intense conflict and that agreeing on a single historical narrative was impossible, Adwan and Bar-On's project offered a space for both narratives to be presented to students in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. According to the GEI (n.d.a): “The aim is to make clear, by confronting diverging interpretations of the events which partially exclude each other, how conditional both national narratives are, and thus to foster self-critical thinking and mutual dialogue.” In the words of Adwan and Bar-On (2007: 147):
The project does not yet aim at criticizing or changing the different historical narratives, nor does it seek to create a joint or bridging narrative. It simply brings to the attention of both sides that another narrative exists as well as their own. They should learn to respect and understand the narrative of the other side even if they do not fully agree with all its contents.
Furthermore, Adwan and Bar-On (2007: 155) state:
This was the first time that both sides had been exposed to the narrative of the other in such a comprehensive way: time was needed to look again at their own narratives and to reflect. We were leaving the construction of bridging narratives to the individual and to the two communities in the future. It was our belief that these booklets, and the experience we had gained so far, would be valuable after a comprehensive peace agreement that ended the conflict.
The textbook is designed for ninth and tenth grade Israeli and Palestinian students and includes the dominant Israeli and Palestinian narratives about significant historical events translated into English, Hebrew and Arabic. Teachers participating in the project were taught special skills for teaching with dual narratives and were trained to anticipate students’ possible reactions to the curricula. Adwan and Bar-On are clear that the narratives used are not meant to speak for all Israelis or all Palestinians, but rather are the narratives that tend to dominate the historical discourse of each group. The different narratives about the same event are presented next to each other with a blank section left in between that can be used as a place for students to record their thoughts about both narratives. The design of the textbook, Adwan and Bar-On (n.d.) note, would allow each student to
… learn also the narrative of the other, in addition to the familiar narrative, as a first step toward acknowledging and respecting the other. We assumed that a joint narrative would emerge only after the clear change from war culture to peace culture took place. This requires time and the ability to mourn and work through the painful results of the past.
The textbooks are accompanied by class discussions, which are focused on reducing acrimonious feelings between the two populations of students.
While Adwan and Bar-On led the project, they enlisted the help of two history professors – one Israeli and one Palestinian – and chose from various types of schools a team of three male and three female Jewish-Israeli history teachers and three male and three female Palestinian history and geography teachers; the symmetry in participation was very intentional. In addition to the teachers, six international delegates and one Jewish-Israeli observer joined the project. Adwan and Bar-On note that the Palestinian teachers had never participated in formal dialogue projects with Israelis, while several of the Israelis teachers had previously participated in such dialogue projects with Palestinians; the teachers’ “willingness, commitment and motivation to work with members of the other community,” as well as their ability to communicate in English were important factors in their selection to work on the project (Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 149). The teachers were such an intimate part of the project for two reasons: first, the teachers were responsible for writing the narratives included in the textbook, which “would help them develop a sense of ownership, ensure their commitment to the process, and demonstrate their achievement through the product” (Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 149). Second, the teachers would be able to develop their approaches to teaching both narratives in the classroom while participating in the project. As Adwan and Bar-On state:
Teachers are the main protagonists in teaching: they have enormous influence in forming the attitudes, values and norms of their pupils. They are therefore the most important potential agents of change. Their role is critical if there is to be any change or development in education and its role in building peace.
Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 148–9
The interpersonal communication between teachers was perceived as a key to the success of the project. From the beginning, the teachers were expected to get to know each other:
They introduced themselves, explained the meaning of their names, talked about the most important events in their lives, and described their professional and academic backgrounds. Subsequent meetings always began with a similar long opening session, in which teachers shared personal, social and professional stories and talked about what had happened to them since the last meeting.
Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 150
Such interactions helped the teachers to understand and form bonds with their colleagues from the other side and helped reassure their mutual commitments to the project.
The teachers were divided into three groups of four, with each foursome containing two Israelis and two Palestinians. Within each group of four, a historical event was selected and the pair of Israelis and the pair of Palestinians simultaneously wrote separate narratives about the selected event. During the writing process, the two pairs met frequently to discuss the event and answer each other questions. Once the two narratives were written, the texts were translated and the pairs were allowed to read each other's narratives in their own language. At this phase of the process, the pairs were allowed to comment on each other's narratives. The teachers routinely reported back to the whole group about their progress, their setbacks, their discussions and their general thoughts and feelings about the project and particular issues they were working on.
The project was headquartered at the PRIME facilities, which were intentionally built in an area that was easily accessible to Palestinian and Israeli participants, and included meeting, dining and residential accommodation. “Face to face meetings were difficult,” Adwan and Bar-On note, adding that “cooperation was more frequently maintained by telephone and e-mail contacts. Many meetings were at checkpoints, to exchange materials, offer mutual support and to have brief discussions on projects,” (Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 146). Continuing with the project became increasingly difficult as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians intensified, but the participants remained committed to the project. Most teachers who used the booklet during the intense times of the second Intifada had to find creative ways to introduce the material to their classes. For example, in some cases, teachers taught with the booklet from their homes, taught the material from the booklet in small portions, divided students into small groups or taught the material after classes were officially over (Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 153). In the face of growing logistical and security challenges and in an effort to avoid too much public attention being focused on the project, Adwan and Bar-On (2007: 146) note: “our expectations became long term, rather than immediate. It became much simpler to organize meetings outside the region.” Despite the challenges, Adwan and Bar-On report that the teachers who participated in the project have learned to understand each other's narratives better and have developed strong friendships and that “individual commitment to PRIME's mission and objectives has increased, and involvement in PRIME's projects has enhanced participants’ hopes and belief in peace and a better future” (Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 145).
The PRIME project has been successful and offers an effective model for other societies that are mired in conflict. The project started with one history text booklet and has thus far expanded to three booklets, each covering an array of historical events. The first booklet has been translated into several languages and has even been used in some schools outside of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including schools in Germany and the United States. Project participants have been invited to conferences in Europe and the United States to discuss the project, share the booklet and relate their experiences to others in the academic field. Although there has been much international attention given to this project, Adwan and Bar-On tried to limit the publicity about the project in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories “so as not to harm the dynamic of the process that had developed between the teachers” (Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 154). Protecting the process from local scrutiny was not the only challenge that PRIME project leaders faced. Other noteworthy problems that Adwan and Bar-On highlight are: an asymmetry between the parties, which inherently means different levels of access to information and resources for various project participants; financial and logistical limitations, which can ultimately derail a project if not handled wisely; cultural differences, which may be misunderstood and can contribute to tension between project participants; suspicion between parties, which can cause participants to question the honesty and integrity of each other; problems relating to language differences and translation issues, which can impact the ability of participants to communicate with one another; fear of failure, which can impact participants’ motivation levels – particularly when tangible results are slow to emerge; criticism or lack of support from participants’ communities and loved ones, which can be psychologically stressful for participants and can potentially isolate them from their communities or persuade them to withdraw from the project; the painful daily reality of living in a time of conflict, which can be emotionally crippling for participants, (Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 156–7).
Much can be learned from the success of the PRIME project, and Adwan and Bar-On offer several important insights that others involved in similar projects should take into consideration:
Leaders of projects in similar circumstances need to create activities that keep re-energizing and re-motivating the team to continue to commit to the project. We needed the flexibility and the willingness to adjust our plans and procedures when they did not work at particular points … The progress of projects such as these is never linear … We found it critical always to build on what we had achieved, however little this was, and to focus on the processes rather than on the results. While our expectations were very clear, they were also modest. Rather than always thinking of what we hoped to achieve, we instead gave much thought to how we could continue the dynamic of the processes we had succeeded in developing. The psychological feelings of our team were very important, particularly negative emotions of fear and stress.
Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 156
The material included in the PRIME booklets has been met with mixed reactions from both students and their parents. Parents’ reactions to the curricula, Adwan and Bar-On (2007: 153) note, have tended to reflect the intensity of the political environment in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and, while many have supported the project, many others have expressed disapproval. Some students have been open-minded to the ideas presented in the booklets, while others have been resistant to the idea of embracing an alternative narrative. Adwan and Bar-On highlight a few examples of mixed student reactions: “It is nice to know the narrative of those on the other side”; “Even if there are differences, there are also some similarities in the narratives”; “Our narratives are fact but theirs’ are propaganda”; “Now I know why the conflict is so difficult to resolve,” (Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 153). The changes in the teachers who participated in the project became clear when the group started to work on the second booklet; Israeli and Palestinian teachers were more inclined to accommodate each other's needs and concerns without compromising the key aspects of their own narratives (Adwan and Bar-On 2007: 154). Thirteen meetings into the project, Adwan and Bar-On (2007: 154) highlight, one of the teachers asked those of the other side: “When I will teach the 1950s from your perspective, what would you like me to emphasize?”
The Tbilisi initiative
The Tbilisi Initiative was a cooperative effort between Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan to develop a common textbook addressing the history of the South Caucasus region. The aim of this book was to address issues of historic traumas, promote reconciliation, and to encourage future generations of these democratic states to learn how to live together peacefully as neighbors. This unique project started in 1997 and went through different stages, including discussions, meetings with experts and the actual writing of the sections on the national histories. Publication of the textbook was scheduled for 2006, but political situations in the region destroyed plans for the official publication. Nevertheless, the textbook was published by a private publishing house and became popular among teachers in the region.
The idea of the common history textbook first was discussed during regional seminar “The reform of history teaching in secondary schools” – held in Georgia in September 1997 – organized by the Ministry of Education of Georgia. The former First Deputy Minister of Education, Mr Giorgi Sharvashidze, proposed a supplementary history textbook on the history of Caucasus for high school children. This idea was strongly supported by all members of the Tabakhmela meeting; for them, the idea of cooperating with the colleagues from Azerbaijan and Armenia to create a totally different textbook about the Caucasus was extremely attractive. Taking into consideration the fact that the region of South Caucasus is laden with conflict, the importance of developing a joint history textbook that can promote reconciliation was obvious.
The lack of clear demarcation lines between countries contributed to the border disputes and tense regional relations in the Caucasus. The current claims for territorial possession are justified by the histories of the various kingdoms and empires that have, in the past, exercised control over the region. Thus, the compound history of the region, and its complex geography, contribute to the conflicts within the Caucasus. A presentation of history that reflects a total lack of communications between the peoples of the region has led to persistent traumas and each side viewing the others as the “enemy.” Gaining a better understanding of the dynamics that drive conflict could help the future leaders of South Caucasus countries develop reconciliation, peace and tolerance within the region. The Council of Europe's support and involvement became one of the most important and encouraging elements of the project. Cooperation under the auspices of the Council of Europe was perceived as a good vehicle through which to peacefully discuss burning issues in the region. It was very important that all participants were professionals in their areas of expertise and, thus, it was decided that only historians from the National Academies of Sciences from Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan would participate in a given project.
The second international meeting on the Initiative was held in 1998 in Kazbegi, Georgia under supervision of the Ministry of Education of Georgia and the Council of Europe. The purpose of the meeting was to define the main goals and format of the textbook, establish working teams from each participating country, and discuss issues of cooperation, coordination and other important aspects of the project. During intense debates, most of the above-mentioned issues were agreed upon. Four teams of historians from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the North Caucasus were created. The project coordinators were appointed by the Directorate of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, Environment of Council of Europe. Experts from different European countries, including Poland and Moldova, who were specially invited to the meeting, actively participated in the discussion of the various problems.
The meeting also involved discussions on several issues concerning controversial and sensitive issues in South Caucasus history as well as the overall challenge of writing about history “objectively” and presenting different interpretations to pupils. Armenian participants mentioned the need to address such issues as the controversy over border disputes with their neighbors, the values and positions of past cultures, and the genocide of Armenians at the beginning of the twentieth century. Georgian participants stressed the need to address the issues of the nineteenth century integration of Georgia with Russia and the Abkhazia conflict. It was also noted that Azerbaijan and Armenia had unresolved border problems and national identity issues, differing views of the 1920 Armenian-Azeri War and lingering tensions over the Lenin-Stalin decision to grant Karabakh and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan.
The participants in the discussion emphasized the importance of creating an objective text that could contribute to the trauma healing and reconciliation process. Thus, in addition to presenting national views of regional history and conflict, the textbook aimed to acknowledge past wrongdoings and violent actions in the region. The textbook was seen as a way in which to aid the development of peaceful co-existence and a common regional identity that could unite all people of the Caucasus independently of their nationality, ethnicity and religion.
The report of the first meeting on the Initiative – in Kasbegy, Georgia in October 1998 – established the guidelines for the creation of the textbook by the authors. The scope of the project did not include the intention of fully covering the rich history and cultures of the region; instead, the textbook was planned as a supplementary text to be used in addition to existing books. The book was designed to have two parts: one presenting a very brief outline of historical events and the other highlighting the rich cultures of the different peoples of the Caucasus. Additionally, the book was to include an introduction, a section on the national histories of each country (15 pages), a thematic section (12 pages), a section about key people and events and a glossary (three pages).
It was unanimously decided that regular regional meetings should be organized: to discuss new methods in teaching history in secondary schools; analyse how controversial and sensitive issues in history should be taught in present-day secondary schools; and discuss with authors and publishers the preparation of history textbooks for present-day secondary schools. The meeting in Kazbegi became the model and the starting point for carrying out the international project that became known as the Tbilisi Initiative. In 1999, in Moscow, the participants and coordinators worked on perfecting the historical and thematic portions of the textbook. During the next meeting, organized in Tbilisi on March 2000, the participants were joined by the Ministers of Education from participating countries who came to reiterate their support for reforming regional history curricula. Another goal of this meeting was to introduce Professor David Braund to the project participants, as he was the expert who would be author to the preface of the textbook. The majority of discussions were about sensitive and controversial issues to be presented in the second, thematic part and in a third part focusing on key people in the history of the Caucasus. The hope was that the publication of a Caucasian textbook would help students to acknowledge violent actions committed by representatives of their nations as well as to promote mutual understanding, respect and tolerance.
Since the Initiative was the first attempt at regional cooperation, there were some obstacles and problems during the work process. Thus, despite the coordination of the project activities by the Council of Europe only 20 percent of the textbook had been written by 2001. During the preparation of the first draft of the book problems relating to communication, working style and work format became evident. The majority of participants admitted several problems they faced during that time. Participants rigorously discussed various issues until collective decisions were made and an agreement on the format or the content of the textbook was reached. Unfortunately, when participants went back to their home countries, the positive results of these discussions were lost; participants disregarded agreements that were made with their colleagues due to political pressure from government officials and other historians.
Thus, during the first stage of the project, it became clear that attempts to develop a common text would be unsuccessful despite patient negotiation of conflicts by the Council of Europe and mutual understanding among participants. Participants from each country were eager to defend their point of view and promote their own versions of the past. Historical narratives preferred by each country did not only reflect the uniqueness of their own culture and traditions, but also justified their current positions and supported future policies.
As has already been discussed, during the turbulent history of the region, the borders of states changed numerous times, and Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan each held control over the bulk of the region – including lands of their neighbors – at at least one point in time. This reality has provided each nation with the opportunity to justify claims for specific territories and develop arguments for or against autonomy. Moreover, the historical narratives of each country reflect chosen traumas or glorious historical moments crucial to the identity of a specific ethnic group that could not be undermined by or shared with others. These traumas and glories are perceived by neighboring countries as a threat to their own identity and self-esteem. Thus, the work on the textbook transformed into a “battle” of identities.
To overcome this growing problem, it was suggested that, instead of producing a common text, each group of authors would record their country's history in the manner they felt necessary. Then, all the parts would be combined and an editor chosen by the Council of Europe would write a special introductory note mentioning that the Council of Europe did not endorse this interpretation of history as an official record of historical events. For example, one point of contention among the participating nations is the historical interpretation of the Armenian genocide under the Ottoman Empire in the early twentieth century; Armenian historians claim approximately 1.5 million victims of the genocide, while Azeri and Turkish historians claim that the number of deaths was actually much smaller and insist that these deaths were simply casualties of World War I. In this case, it was decided that all three countries would present their own historical perspective and that an independent party – the Council of Europe – would provide an impartial presentation of the event in an introductory section.
After several challenging attempts to make the project work it was decided to prepare three parallel texts that would represent each country's historical narrative. This decision provided the opportunity for each country to emphasize the most important events in their history, highlight specific leaders and heroes and underline the cultural and historical basis of ethnic and national identities. Moreover, it opened the door for a presentation of events that previously provoked vigorous discussions and threatened the success of the project. Thus, instead of a shared and reconciled historical narrative for the South Caucasus, the common history textbook would present three parallel narratives reflecting not only peaceful coexistence and cooperation in the region, but also conflict issues among the three countries.
During the last meeting in London, the authors met with the experts, coordinators and editors of the already written textbook to make final corrections to the text and to discuss the illustrations. There was a strong belief among project participants that this international project was successfully accomplished, but an official statement from the Armenian delegation regarding the question of addressing the genocide halted the project. Participants recalled the debate over the use of the term “genocide” as a major point that impeded the project. As one participant put it: “I had no problems in communicating with other participants. The only exception was the question of the Armenian genocide, which, after long and exhausting negotiations, was adjusted but unexpectedly came up in the final meeting in London.” One participant aptly summed this up by stating: “the only problem was (and still is) mentioning of the Armenian genocide of 1915.” After long disputes it was decided that the word “genocide” would not be included in the text, but would be given as a footnote. The Armenians insisted on mentioning “genocide” in the text, without quotation marks. This issue is one of the main reasons why this project has been frozen. “As project coordinator,” one participant suggested: “I experienced some problems with the authors of the project, especially at the very beginning. After reviewing the Azeri texts, Armenian historians had very serious concerns and disagreements with them. Some Armenians brought very strong justifications (based on other nations’ authors and historical sources) rejecting the above mentioned falsifications” (extracts from interviews conducted by the author).
Thus, close to the point of publication, the book's progress was halted by the disagreement over how to address the issue of the Armenian genocide. The participating authors from Azerbaijan were strongly against mentioning anything about this issue in the text; because of its strong ties and ethnic connections with Turkey, Azerbaijan maintained its denial that genocide had occurred. Armenian participants continued to insist on including the word genocide in the text without any quotation marks. Their position was supported by letters from the Armenian Ministry of Education and Science. As a possible way to overcome this barrier, it has been suggested that the textbook could list all of the countries that have officially acknowledged that the events of 1915 in Armenia were, in fact, genocide.1 But the Armenian delegation vigorously rejected this proposal. To avoid jeopardizing the results of seven years of work on the project, it was suggested that the textbook only include events occurring before 1912. It was perceived that this decision could help to avoid any discussion of the genocide issue. The request was submitted to the Council of Europe, but after careful consideration and consultations with project participants the Council of Europe decided to end the project without publishing the book.
In a letter sent to representatives from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, Terry Davis, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, states that the “project gave history teachers from North and South Caucasus a unique opportunity to work together, share experience and discuss differences in their views and common approaches to their shared past.” Furthermore, the letter emphasizes the importance of the project, stressing that it provided the opportunity “to promote new interactive teaching methods focusing in particular on multiperspectivity, specially designed to help new generations to understand and appreciate factors such as cultural diversity.” Nevertheless, as the letter states, “the ‘Tbilisi Initiative’ project has now come to an end.” The textbook, a result of seven years of hard work by historians from three countries, was not officially published because agreement over the issue of the Armenian genocide was not reached. Unfortunately, politics and conflicts have appeared more powerful than the educational initiative aimed at bringing peace and mutual understanding to the region. Nevertheless, the textbook was published a year later by a private publishing house. Three participants in the project – Aydin Aslanov, from Azerbajan, Armen Hachikyan from Armenia and Paata Ramishvili from Georgia – put together revised text and published it in Russian as a run of 1000 exemplars. The books are distributed to libraries, scientific and educational establishments within the three countries. It presents histories of countries of the region and provides a unique opportunity for children to understand the views and perspectives of their neighbors.
Conclusion
The common history initiatives presented in the chapter are just a sample of some of the past and existing projects that have sought to encourage trauma healing and reconciliation by addressing biased and conflicting historical narratives that helped perpetuate tension and conflict between various nations. In each of these initiatives, supplementary or major texts were created to introduce students to new perspectives on familiar historical events. Some of these projects started from the grassroots level while others were initiated at the state level. The ultimate aim of projects such as these is the introduction of a sense of multiperspectivity in history curricula and, as a result, the promotion of understanding and strengthening of ties between citizens of post-conflict societies.
Unfortunately, the process of confrontation with another narrative is “so marked … by past conflicts (and) still charged with lethal possibilities of further conflict” (Dunne 2003: 114). The history narratives contain impervious memories of past sufferings and glories that are immortalized in the in-group identity. Such memories constitute central grievances and enmities; they are also the source of chauvinistic sentiments and justification for in-group actions against other groups – such as retribution and revenge. These history narratives are considered vital for identity preservation and thus are completely entrenched. Attempts to challenge or confront them are perceived as direct attacks on a group's identity, which is also an essential part of an individual's identity. Therefore, confronting narratives provoke personal reactions of defense, resistance, and anger.
It is important to understand why parallel narratives work for the purposes of trauma healing and reconciliation. While detailed and comprehensive analysis of this influence requires specific evaluation research, this chapter can provide some ideas for future considerations. The availability of several “readings” or interpretations of the causes and effects of certain historical events also provides a space for the development of alternative meanings of national identity and perceptions of other nations. “The Exchange of Memories” model developed by Ricoeur (1995) shows that narratives can be recounted through the process of confronting and considering an alternative narrative. During this process, people from one community attempt to “enter imaginatively and sympathetically into the story or stories of another people – while at the same time allowing their own story or stories to be reconfigured through the impact of this recognition of the other” (Dunne 2003: 114). “Plural readings” of the same historical events can lead to a reinterpretation of events and a transformation of formerly established views and positions. This process evokes liberation “not from the past but of the past, or rather of the frustrated potential of the past” (Dunne 2003: 114). The contradictions between social groups that were perceived to be unchangeable and permanent throughout history can be reinterpreted; conflicts can be transformed into possible cooperation. The “unbreakable border” between two narratives has to be challenged in the way that “the parties in the conflict come to believe that there are people on the other side with whom they can negotiate, and issues that are negotiable” (Ross 2007:4). The process of reconsidering history and contemplating different interpretations of events involves empathy and forgiveness and can lead to the appreciation and acknowledgement of another group's positions and identity.
Every historical narrative reflects a specific rationality of history:
History, as it comes through the historian, retains, analyses, and connects only important events. Unlike the physicist's subjectivity, the historian subjectivity intervenes here in an original way as a set of interpretative schemata. The quality of the interrogator therefore becomes essential to the very selection of the documents interrogated.
Ricoeur 1965: 26
In other words, history narratives are based on explicit judgments about the importance of specific events in the history of a particular nation or ethnic group. A parallel history narrative reflects an alternative rationality: it presents other historical events or provides a different assessment of the importance of events. They also depict alternative causalities, which sometimes can completely contradict familiar beliefs about causality. Thus, alternative historical narratives confront an established sagacity and show other ways of thinking about and understanding the violent actions; they provoke the destruction of familiar rationality and challenge reputable wisdom. But, most importantly, alternative historical narratives undermine established ideas about the causes of inter-group conflict and provide an opportunity to reinterpret inter-group relations.
Through historical narratives, history textbooks position the in-group and various out-groups, depicting the views, policies and actions of each group as desired by the ruling regime. “Positioning is … to be understood as a procedure of making determinate a psychological phenomenon for the purpose at hand” (Harre and van Langenhole 1999: 16). A parallel historical narrative offers an alternative positioning by presenting a different set of motives, plans, beliefs and actions of another group. It can help address concerns and remove suspicions and fears as well as reconsider initial positioning. Thus, parallel narratives can transform the positioning of another country from aggressive and dangerous to traumatized and self-defending. It also can convert the dual positioning of “aggressor–victim” into the positioning of “two developing countries, expanding their borders.”
By judging the actions of the in-group and out-group against a certain notion of morality, history narratives develop a collective axiology – a system of value commitments that offers moral guidance to maintain relations with those within, and outside, a group (Rothbart and Korostelina, 2006). Dominant historical narratives aim to form a collective axiology for the sake of regulating in-group behaviors by providing criteria for understanding actions and events: “A collective axiology defines boundaries and relations among groups and establishes criteria for in-group/out-group membership. Through its collective axiology, a group traces its development from a sacred past, extracted from mythic episodes beyond the life of mortals, and seeks permanence” (Rothbart and Korostelina 2006: 4). Parallel historical narratives change the balance of an existing collective axiology. “Axiological balance refers to a kind of parallelism of virtues and vices attributed to groups. When applied to stories about the Other, a balanced axiology embeds positive and negative characteristics in group identities” (Rothbart and Korostelina 2006: 46). Thus, the balance of the collective axiology can be restored through a more positive perception of the out-group. The most difficult result to achieve in this process is the reconsideration of one's own totally positive image and the acceptance of one's own wrongdoings and responsibility in relations with other groups: “through confrontation with the stories of others … a space is open for such a recounting of … one's own story” (Dunne 2003: 113). Thus, the discussion in alternative narratives of the immoral aggressive actions of another group can challenge the collective axiology established in an in-group's textbook and lead to a more balanced perception of the in-group.
Parallel history narratives can also produce changes in the degree of collective generality that “refers to the ways in which in-group members categorize the Other, how they simplify, or not, their defining (essential) character” (Rothbart and Korostelina 2006: 45). A high level of collective generality, usually presented in history textbooks in conflict and post-conflict societies, is connected with viewing an out-group as consistent, homogeneous, demonstrating fixed patterns of behaviors, being committed to durable and rigid beliefs and values and being widespread in the region or throughout the world. Alternative historical narratives provide ample information about different groups, parties and movements within a group, emphasizing transformations of policies and ideologies. Thus, parallel narratives can decrease the degree of collective generality through offering new perceptions of an out-group as diverse, ready for transformation, and exhibiting various kinds of behaviors.
While each of the projects has met with obstacles and challenges along the way – lack of steady funding, wavering government support, alternative learning styles and disagreements over content have been a few such issues – each initiative has resulted in the production of textbooks for student use as well as some form of training for teachers who are responsible for teaching the new materials. The success of these projects is encouraging; the initiatives that have taken place to date can help build a foundation for future projects of a similar nature. While each project and region is unique, a look back at the processes and procedures as well as the successes and challenges of these projects can prove helpful for participants in similar future projects.
Note
1 This list of countries includes: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, the United States, Vatican City and Venezuela. Although part of the United Kingdom, Wales also officially recognizes the Armenian Genocide. The Parliament of the State of New South Wales, Australia, passed a resolution acknowledging and condemning the Armenian Genocide in 1997. The acknowledgement of genocide by these nations has provoked a strong negative reaction from the Turkish government. For example, as a response to the United States’ resolution to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, the Turkish government recalled its ambassador from Washington and raised the question of the United States’ right to use an air force base in southeastern Turkey for operations in Iraq.