Abstract:
Cultural and religious diversity does not inherently produce violent conflict. It is rather when identities are weaponized and coupled with collective grievances that conflict is most likely to occur. This article asks what causes cultural and religious polarization in contemporary conflicts and how such polarization can be understood in relation to conflict mediation. It seeks to target the social identity, collective victimhood and political mobilization theories, sacred values, intergroup animosity and distrust, and the mediation theories adapted to peace processes, in order to understand how polarization and division of identity in conflict are created and nurtured. There are several factors that can contribute to polarization, including politicized identity, historical grievances, perceived threats, socio-economic injustices, as well as social and political belonging and victimhood. These can complicate the trust-building and compromise-based negotiating process and transform political interests into concerns of identity, dignity, and the collective safety. This article suggests that, in the case of mediation for polarized conflicts, one must resolve the core issues of the conflict and the fragmentation of the population. Therefore, mediation that is successful has to deal with the complex structural conditions of polarization. This can be achieved through the establishment of recognition, trust, and inclusivity through dialogue, and addressing various conditions of injustice.
Keywords: cultural polarization, social identity, intergroup conflict
Introduction:
Cultural and religious diversity has always been present among human societies. There have always been multiple communities living together with differing belief systems, traditions, and languages. However, the presence of religious diversity does not explain why some societies co-exist peacefully while others experience violent conflict (Köbrich & Hoffmann, 2023). Contemporary views on conflict and identity suggests that cultural and religious diversity becomes significant when it extends into the political sphere or collective grievances and is used to create divisions between the groups of people who are considered insiders and outsiders of a given society.
This transformation is best exemplified through increased social divisions. As social divisions deepen, differences that have the potential to peacefully coexist become increasingly perceived through lenses of “us” and “them”. In these cases, social conflict may indirectly take on cultural or religious dimensions, while grievances can be seen through the historical and lived narratives of the social group. These divisions and social conflicts may be articulated through politics and religion, which can provide meaningful frameworks within which people can articulate their grievances, social conflicts and concerns. Under these conditions, religions and ethnic identities may provide the boundaries and frameworks for articulating conflicts without necessarily constituting their underlying causes (Fox, 2000).
Conflicts that are culturally and religiously polarized cannot be understood as simply conflicts of competing material interests. When politically articulated cultural demands become intertwined with deeply embedded or sacred values, compromise may be understood not simply as a concession, but as a threat to principles central to the identity of the group (Atran & Ginges, 2012). Distrust of each other may severely limit dialogue, while leaders willing to negotiate may be subjected to intense internal pressure not to reach a compromise with the opposing group.
This article, therefore, seeks to answer the following: what causes the phenomenon of cultural and religious polarization in contemporary conflicts, and how can this polarization be understood in relation to conflict mediation? This article argues that cultural and religious polarization should not automatically be understood as a cause of violent conflict.
Main Corpus:
Varying ethnic and religious identities do not always lead to hostility. Research on ethnic polarization and civil conflict shows that diversity alone does not explain violence, as the political exclusion and mobilization of group identities are also important factors (Cederman et al., 2010). This is a meaningful distinction for considering cultural and religious polarization as diverse identities, beliefs, and traditions can coexist without necessarily creating divisions between groups. However, polarization happens when these diverse identities and beliefs increasingly and deeply structure social and political domains and organize opposing groups. As these distinctions sharpen, perceived threats between groups may produce greater social distance and more negative attitudes toward opposing groups (Renström et al., 2021). Political questions of space, social, and economic resources may correlate with cultural or religious affiliations, which means that the importance of identity is always changing. The political relevance of ethnic identities may therefore vary considerably depending on their relationship to state power and mobilization (Cederman et al., 2010).
Cultural and religious identities are especially tied to conflict when there is a noticeable shift in identities with political and social change. Concerns about inequality and discrimination and issues of political and social insecurity are no longer seen as issues against an individual. They are more and more seen as issues that threaten the entire group (Cederman et al., 2010).
Experiences of discrimination, political exclusion, and violence may also become incorporated into collective narratives of victimhood. These narratives can shape how communities interpret events and their relationships with other groups. When present developments appear to reinforce established memories of injustice or victimization, historical experiences can continue to influence intergroup relations and perceptions of the conflict (Lynch & Joyce, 2018).
Political mobilization can further intensify this process. Research on ethnic and religious identity demonstrates that group identities can provide powerful foundations for collective political action, but their effects depend substantially on context. Research has found, for example, that stronger religious identification can be associated with increased political participation among some communities while discouraging political participation among others (Kopko, 2012; Ocampo et al., 2018). Treating entire religious or cultural communities as politically uniform therefore risks overlooking divisions within them and the circumstances that determine when identity becomes politically salient.
More than dislike or friction, polarization manifests as a transformation of perception. When political, religious, or cultural preferences are increasingly organized around opposing group identities, the distinction between “us” and “them” becomes more prominent. Members of an opposing group may be viewed as less than individuals with different interests and more as representatives of a group whose intentions are viewed with suspicion (Iyengar et al., 2019). In this way polarization can reinforce factionalism and make distrust of the opposing group appear justified or natural (Iyengar et al., 2019).
In more severe conflicts, this distinction can develop into moral exclusion or dehumanization. When individuals perceive members of other groups as undeserving of the same degree of moral consideration as members of their own group, discrimination and harm against those groups may become easier to justify (Opotow, 1990).
In order to describe a situation, the way in which language is expressed matters. If there are ways to describe ethnic, cultural, or religious groups in a manner that makes them appear dangerous or as disloyal, uncooperative members of a fragmented society, this can widen existing societal fractures (Dangerous Speech Project, n.d.). Ultimately, the likelihood of peaceful coexistence becomes further diminished.
For many social groups, memory of past victimization or violence can also be a unifying feature of collective memory. It can shape relationships long after the actual victimization occurred (Schori-Eyal et al., 2014). Although memory of the past can help social groups understand and empathize with one another, it can also affect the way present events are perceived.
Historical injustices can also make it easier to understand why a group feels threatened. Depending on the history of different social groups, it is also possible that conflicting accounts of who is the victim, who is to blame, and whom the right to claim ownership truly belongs to shape the psyche of each social group. As a result, conflict is no longer understood solely through current events. Past and present become connected, and contemporary political disputes can acquire the symbolic weight of earlier injustices. This can make compromise particularly difficult when concessions are understood not only in terms of their immediate consequences but also through memories of previous losses (Schori-Eyal et al., 2014).
If cultural or religious identity divisions are exploited for political gain, international relations may become even more fractious. Political mobilization can intensify identity-based divisions when organizations compete to represent the interests of an ethnic or cultural group. Research suggests that competition within ethno-political movements can encourage organizations to make increasingly radical political demands in order to distinguish themselves from rivals and strengthen their position within the movement. Such radicalization can, in turn, increase the risk that political disputes escalate into armed conflict (Vogt et al., 2021).
Once attitudes become more fixated on this issue, the implications of the compromise also become more complex. The act of political compromise is interpreted within the group as abandoning a sacred value, a principle, or a part of collective identity. Under these conditions, conventional attempts to encourage compromise through material incentives may prove ineffective and can even increase opposition to an agreement (Ginges et al., 2007).
Because some level of separation can be understood in all conflicts, the more pronounced the separation, the more complex the problems related to mediation. Conflicts that touch on cultural or religious identity tend to make parties lose the perception of conflicts as just interest-based. Mediators must therefore work with an environment of distrust, historical grievances, and internal pressures within each group that can make compromise difficult.
The conflict in Northern Ireland offers an example of how cultural and religious identities can be intertwined with political and national divisions. The Catholic and Protestant identities were historically aligned to the larger political identities of nationalism and unionism, being further alienated by this conflict (Muldoon et al., 2007). This conflict can therefore not be explained as just a conflict between two religious communities. Religious identification was linked with national identity, political affiliation, constitutional status, and the notion of belonging. The conflict even pioneered the creation of opposing narratives of victimhood, where several communities perceived and conceptualized their positions, while also understanding the counter narrative, via the experiences and memories of violence and loss inflicted upon them (Lynch & Joyce, 2018). These narratives reinforced divisions by connecting political disagreements with the memories of past violence and injustices. The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement of 1998 illustrates how addressing such a conflict required more than an agreement on an immediate political dispute (Belfast Agreement, 1998). The case therefore illustrates that, in addressing a polarized conflict, both the polical demands of the warring parties and the relationships that are most important to them must be addressed.
When different communities have been highly polarized for years, particularly when violence forms part of their shared history, establishing mutual trust becomes considerably more difficult. Under such circumstances, the actions and intentions of the opposing group may increasingly be interpreted through existing perceptions of hostility and responsibility (Çelebi et al., 2014). Initiatives intended to reduce tensions may likewise struggle to achieve their purpose when the parties fundamentally distrust one another. The resulting lack of cooperation can reinforce existing distrust and restrict opportunities for meaningful dialogue and reconciliation (Kappmeier et al., 2021).
Parties to a polarized conflict may seek recognition alongside other meaningful outcomes. Following experiences of discrimination, displacement, violence, or exclusion, demands for the recognition of collective suffering and injustice may become particularly significant (Bar-Tal et al., 2009). This becomes more challenging when communities maintain conflicting historical narratives and competing claims to victimhood, particularly when each group perceives its own suffering as insufficiently recognized (De Guissmé & Licata, 2017). Mediation must consequently create opportunities for acknowledgment and recognition while allowing space for competing interpretations of the past (Ben-Josef Hirsch, 2021).
The last point is that mediation requires the parties to recognize both the mediator and the process as legitimate. The perceived impartiality and credibility of the mediator can therefore be particularly important to the acceptance and effectiveness of the mediation process (Smith, 1994). Formal impartiality, therefore, may not be enough. Mediators must establish credibility with the communities involved and demonstrate that the process provides meaningful recognition and participation to each side.
The challenges of polarization do not suggest eliminating identity from mediation. Cultural and religious identities may be significant to the parties involved and may create openings for dialogue and reconciliation. Therefore, mediation that recognizes the importance of identity and of cultural and religious plurality, and the fact that communities are not necessarily homogeneous and that divergent identities are not necessarily contradictory, is likely to be more effective.
Contextualization of conflict and its development is the starting point of sensitive mediation. Understanding historical grievances and their instigators as well as the inequitable distribution of political power, systemic discrimination, relations of power and the varying community articulations of the conflict is all important. Mediators should also identify relevant political, religious, and community actors while recognizing divisions within the groups themselves. A community described as “religious,” “ethnic,” or “cultural” rarely speaks with a single voice. Differences of generation, gender, political affiliation, social position, and interpretation may produce significant variation within apparently unified groups.
Summary:
The analysis demonstrates that cultural and religious diversity does not inherently produce violent conflict. The more notable and more likely source of conflict is the polarized fusion of cultural and/or religious pluralism with identity subsuming politics and the creation of oppositional politics. Historical complexities, perceived and real threats, inequalities and political friction can deepen social divisions to the point that competing claims to political, spatial and resource domination are seen as competing claims to dignity, safety, and survival.
Conclusion:
Mediation can attempt to solve these issues, but likely won’t be enough given the context of the situation. To address these issues, mediation must be on these two polarized levels. The first concerns the actual issues of the polarized conflict: the politics of representation, security, land, rights and resources, and the politics of institutional arrangement. The second concerns the relationship of the polarized communities and identities. Even if there are some actual and feasible compromises, these will not bring peace and resolution to the conflict if there is polarization sustained by an identity of distrust, competing and polarized perceptions of history, and a sustained, intractable fear of the other side. The mediation should occur within the polarized community as well as the structural components that reinforce the polarization. It is important to recognize differences between relationships and structures, because neither dimension can fully compensate for the absence of the other. With communities in which there is an absence of trust, institutional arrangements are read as confirming and working in line with fears and historical grievances. In addition, unequal or inadequate representation, discrimination, or unstable politics can sustain distrust that mediation seeks to address. The case of Northern Ireland is an example of the relevance of both dimensions. The Belfast Agreement combined constitutional and power-sharing arrangements with commitments to equality, mutual respect, and the recognition of British and Irish identities (Belfast Agreement, 1998). This does not mean that institutional arrangements alone resolve polarized relationships, nor that relationship-building alone resolves structural inequities. Rather, sustainable mediation calls for the consideration of the relationship between the two.
The presence of various communities and religious actors may help reconciliation efforts, but these should not substitute for or lessen the broader engagement and representation efforts. It is not the intention of mediation to remove cultural or religious differences, nor is it required that communities abandon identities that create a sense of belonging, purpose and continuity to successfully resolve conflict. The goal is to design the political and social framework within which those identities are perceived as non-threatening to one another. Having placed together recognition, dialogue, and trust-building alongside substantive negotiation and the kind of institutional reform that fits the context, mediation can help transform relationships where difference has been a cause of division into those in which difference can coexist with compromise and a resolution.
Potential solution:
Mediation can provide space for parties to articulate experiences of injustice, insecurity, and loss. Recognition does not require a mediator to determine which collective narrative is correct. Instead, it allows parties to understand why particular events, symbols, or demands carry significance for the other side. At the same time, mediators should avoid cultural essentialism. Treating individuals primarily as representatives of a fixed religion or culture risks reproducing precisely the rigid boundaries that polarization creates. Recognition should therefore acknowledge both collective identities and diversity within them.
However, dialogue is not sufficient for resolving conflicts supported by structural factors. The Northern Ireland case shows why recognition needs to accompany political and institutional arrangements. The Belfast Agreement did not require the communities involved to abandon their British, Irish, unionist, or nationalist identities. Instead, it implemented political arrangements through power-sharing and the principle of consent, while also recognizing the right of individuals to identify as British, Irish, or both (Belfast Agreement, 1998). This is relevant to the broader argument of this article because one of the aims of mediation is not necessarily to diminish the role of identity. Rather, it is possible to encourage the formation of political arrangements in which multiple identities do not require multiple and mutually exclusive political results. In a polarized conflict, this approach could enable parties to address some substantive issues, without a community feeling like it needs to compromise its identity.
If discrimination, polarized power relations, economic inequality, territorial disputes, or the lack of appropriate mechanisms for the protection of minority rights perpetuate polarization, then the addressing of these factors is also necessary for the settlement. For mediation to be sustainable, there must be a combination of building relationships and institutional changes. The Northern Ireland case demonstrates why these dimensions cannot easily be separated. Mediation is therefore most effective when these factors are understood as interrelated rather than treated as distinct issues.
References:
Atran, S., & Ginges, J. (2012). Religious and sacred imperatives in human conflict. Science, 336(6083), 855–857. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216902
Bar-Tal, D., Chernyak-Hai, L., Schori, N., & Gundar, A. (2009). A sense of self-perceived collective victimhood in intractable conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross, 91(874), 229–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383109990221
Northern Ireland Office. (1998). The Belfast Agreement. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement
Ben-Josef Hirsch, M. (2021). Historical acknowledgment as an early conflict negotiation strategy: A feasibility study of Israel/Palestine. Negotiation Journal, 37(2), 163–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12345
Cederman, L.-E., Wimmer, A., & Min, B. (2010). Why do ethnic groups rebel? New data and analysis. World Politics, 62(1), 87–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887109990219
Çelebi, E., Verkuyten, M., Köse, T., & Maliepaard, M. (2014). Out-group trust and conflict understandings: The perspective of Turks and Kurds in Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 40, 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.02.002
Dangerous Speech Project. (n.d.). What is dangerous speech? https://www.dangerousspeech.org/dangerous-speech
De Guissmé, L., & Licata, L. (2017). Competition over collective victimhood recognition: When perceived lack of recognition for past victimization is associated with negative attitudes towards another victimized group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2244
Fox, J. (2000). The ethnic-religious nexus: The impact of religion on ethnic conflict. Civil Wars, 3(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698240008402444
Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(18), 7357–7360. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701768104
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
Kappmeier, M., Guenoun, B., & Fahey, K. H. (2021). Conceptualizing trust between groups: An empirical validation of the five-dimensional intergroup trust model. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 27(1), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000537
Köbrich, J., & Hoffmann, L. (2023). What do we know about religion and interreligious peace? A review of the quantitative literature. Politics and Religion, 16(4), 708–732. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048323000238
Kopko, K. C. (2012). Religious identity and political participation in the Mennonite Church USA. Politics and Religion, 5(2), 367–393. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048312000077
Lynch, O., & Joyce, C. (2018). Functions of collective victimhood: Political violence and the case of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. International Review of Victimology, 24(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758018758396
Muldoon, O. T., Trew, K., Todd, J., Rougier, N., & McLaughlin, K. (2007). Religious and national identity after the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. Political Psychology, 28(1), 89–103 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227620044_Religious_and_National_Identity_after_the_Belfast_Good_Friday_Agreement
Ocampo, A. X., Dana, K., & Barreto, M. A. (2018). The American Muslim voter: Community belonging and political participation. Social Science Research, 72, 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.02.002
Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00268.x
Renström, E. A., Bäck, H., & Carroll, R. (2021). Intergroup threat and affective polarization in a multi-party system. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 9(2), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7539
Schori-Eyal, N., Halperin, E., & Bar-Tal, D. (2014). Three layers of collective victimhood: Effects of multileveled victimhood on intergroup conflicts in the Israeli-Arab context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(12), 778–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12268
Smith, J. D. D. (1994). Mediator impartiality: Banishing the chimera. Journal of Peace Research, 31(4), 445–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343394031004006
Vogt, M., Gleditsch, K. S., & Cederman, L.-E. (2021). From claims to violence: Signaling, outbidding, and escalation in ethnic conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 65(7–8), 1278–1307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002721996436
