IASC – Controversies and Subjectivity Conference

Ethical Implications of De-dichotomization of Identities in Conflict

Omar Barghouti

In cases of conflict between two groups a strict dichotomy often separates the respective collective-identities of the two “subjects.” In response to the ensuing controversy, the concept of de-dichotomizations may be presented as a possible alternative to the existing conceptual division between the conflicting identities, urging both groups or subjects to question the presumed unity in their own self-identity. This concept may further invite each subject to empathize or at least understand the identity of the ‘other’, seeing it in terms that are not necessarily mutually exclusive with one’s own identity. This in turn opens the door for each side to explore whether some attributes are indeed shared between the two “poles,” and therefore if there is a possibility for reconciliation in their conflict.

In order to arrive at a sound concept of de-dichotomization, though, one has to first examine whether the dichotomy itself is a cause or an effect of the conflict between the two entities in question. Entrenched dichotomies exist in a controversy due to an exclusive sense of subjectivity, or a “resilience” of traditional forms of identification. Alternatively, they may be conceived as reflections, or embodiments, of ingrained existential conflicts. Each of these two views will influence the foundations of any conceptual process of de-dichotomization. In the former case, efforts are focused to challenge the established forms of defining identity, and therefore to explore inter-group commonalities, or attributes that are shared across the subjective “border lines.” In the latter case, changes in the reality of the conflict, that is in the actual experiences of the subjects, are given precedence in affecting a corresponding flux in intra-group awareness, hence in promoting the prospects for inter-group compromise.

The above arguments themselves tend to dichotomize reality and conceptualization, presenting them as mutually-exclusive; a different approach is to examine the interaction between the two, their dialectical relation, which makes both cause and effect simultaneously. From this viewpoint, there is a need to explore a process of de-dichotomization that takes into account the epistemological as well as the ontological dimensions of the conflict between the two identities.

However, there are ethical implications that should not be ignored in this approach as well. In essential conflicts, those based on relations of oppression and injustice, for example, this notion of de-dichotomization is put to a crucial test of morality: it can be complacent, perpetuating, or at least passively accepting, injustice; or it can be transformative, conceptualizing the relations between the same two subjects in the process of undoing the injustice, and after the causes of injustice have been overcome. In the first case, a call for conceptual de-dichotomization of the conflicting identities, independent of the reality of the conflict between them, may be construed as advocating a change in the “consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them,” as Simone de Beauvoir says. In this case, it is interpreted as a call for pacification or “surrender” of the struggle for justice, for redressing the wrong done to the oppressed; it is therefore accused of indirectly perpetuating oppression.

In the second case, dichotomization itself is viewed as not only an abstract concept, but a state of mind, and a state of being; that cannot be readily transcended or glossed over. However, if this is true in analyzing the history and/or the present of a conflict, it should not necessarily be true of the future. We cannot change the facts that X caused Y pain and injustice, which all become embedded into Y’s subjective identity; therefore, we may not be able to challenge the traditional dichotmoy of oppressor vs. oppressed in analyzing this conflict. But, this does not imply that we cannot envision a process leading to a future which precludes the roots and causes of oppression, and which concomitantly is based on a more fluid, hence tolerant, concept of identity.

This paper presents a perspective of de-dichotomization as a dialogical and transformative conceptual tool, which is inseparably related to the general process of conflict resolution. Such a vision can only arise from changes on the ground in that direction, dialectically accompanied with ever evolving concepts that can guide such changes and afford them insight and purpose.