State, community, individual - Societal and Political Psychology ...

that in order to interpret them “we must comprehend
the socially constructed and symbolic
nature of the triggering issues, the confl ict processes
and the polarised identities” (Coleman
2003, p.6 and p. 32).
The distinguishing feature of intractable
confl icts is the dynamic interplay of fi ve elements,
largely overlapping with the results
coming from the framing perspective: aspects
of the contexts, the issues, the relationships,
the processes and the outcomes of the confl ict
(Fig. 1). Intractable confl icts are characterized
to some degree by: an history of perceived op-
The duration of the confl ict, together with such
escalatory loops, is usually indicated as a critical
issue in identifying intractable disputes.
Researchers on EC often tend to rely on “factual”
data to identify longstanding confl icts,
examples are: “Voyageurs National Park was
created in 1975 […] controversy over the park
dates from its earliest day” or “Use of Edwards
Aquifer water became an issue in the 1950s”
(Davis & Lewicki 2003, p. 203). However history
and memory play far more complex roles
in shaping confl icts (for a exhaustive examination
of this point see Tint, 2010). History is
subject to social construction processes, and
the transmission of group narratives, values,
beliefs, myths is characterised by omissions
and distortions which serve psychological as
Societal and Political Psychology International Review
volume 2 ● number 2 ● 2011 ● pp. 115-127
pressions and rivalry, individual or community
trauma, polarization of values and identities,
intricate connection of issues, destructive relationships,
intense emotionality (perceived humiliation,
deprivation, rage, as well as loyalty
and dignity), and escalatory spiral of intensity
with occasional outbreaks of violence (Coleman,
2003). In intractable confl ict, shared beliefs
are organized according to a principle of
circular causality and constitute the basis of
confl ict ethos: patterns of hegemonic beliefs
that add motivational and moral bases to the
interpretation of confl icts (Bar-Tal, 1998).
Figure 1. Distinguishing features of intractable confl icts (derived from Coleman 2003).
well as rhetorical goals (Leone & Mastrovito,
2010; Reicher & Hopkins, 2001). Societies
actively cultivate the permanence of historical
narratives, and transmit confl ict ethos trough
generations (Bar-Tal, 2004; 2007). In this way
shared beliefs may “drive into confl ict individuals
who have never experienced any of
the issues that initially launched the confl ict”
(Coleman et al., 2007), and representations of
the past contribute to the perceptions of new
conflicts (Tint, 2010).
Drawing on these theoretical premises the
present paper makes a case for the idea that
‘factual’ duration of the dispute is itself subject
to framing and is intertwined with the social
construction of the confl ict. Culturally resonant
frames, in fact, link identities of stakeholders,
117