Search

This chapter explores the relationship between religion and politics through the lens of religious peacebuilding. Instead of asking the usual question of what happens to politics when it is infused with religion, it explores what happens to religion when it becomes politicized. Politicized religion distorts the meaning and practice of religion, one consequence of which is to constrain the potential for religious peacebuilding. Instead of becoming part of the solution in conflict transformation, politicized religion becomes part of the problem. The chapter goes on to discuss the far greater role religion has played in transitional justice.

This chapter outlines the rationale for a book on the theme of ex-combatants, as well as the challenges that come with writing it. It stakes the claims to originality that lie in the focus on ex-combatants’ voices and the wide range of types of former combatant it addresses. This chapter identifies what it calls the ‘martyr-hero-demon syndrome’ and suggests that is a distorting moral framework with which to capture the lived experiences of ex-combatants transitioning from war to peace.

This chapter addresses the reintegration experiences of Afghanistan veterans as a case study of the ambivalent and problematic status of some state veterans. It focuses on the peculiar and intense emotional labour costs of counter-insurgency warfare and addresses the legacy of these emotional costs for the reintegration problems experienced by many Afghanistan veterans. This chapter captures the lived experience of Afghanistan veterans in their own words and tries to represent the many difficulties they face as a result of the emotional demands of counter-insurgency operations.

This chapter introduces the notion of remembering forwards, which is contrasted with remembering backwards. Hauntings reside in the burden of past memories, which get reproduced in the process of remembering backwards. This chapter identifies what it calls the burden of the future, namely the problem of how to live together in a shared future despite haunted memories. This chapter suggests that release from these hauntings is found in the idea of remembering forwards. The chapter further argues that these enduring divided memories need to be reimagined by the application of truth, tolerance, togetherness, transformation and trajectory. It is through remembering forwards with these five virtues that people in societies emerging out of conflict can manage the burden of the future, and thus inherit a shared society despite their divided pasts and live in tolerance in the midst of haunting memories. The healing of haunted memories lies in this new approach to remembering.

This chapter provides a contribution to the theorisation of public value social science by the application of the approach to a long established field, the sociology of religion, which can be intellectually renewed by adopting a public value perspective. It argues that a public value approach in the sociology of religion enables it to engage with some of the global challenges that threaten the future of humankind and for this subfield to move from the margins of sociology to the centre of public value social science. Most sociologists of religion therefore give witness both to the growth of secularisation and to a growing public role for religion. The chapter identifies the challenges this throws out to how sociologists of religion envision their role within the public sphere. It discusses various opportunities for public engagement by sociologists of religion, before describing some of the ways sociologists of religion are already entering the public square and impacting on public debate.

In this chapter, the authors present two main objectives – one conceptual, the other empirical – enabling to theorise the nature of compromise after conflict, and to study it empirically in post-conflict societies. Public value research on peace processes helps societies emerging out of conflict to make sense of themselves, helps them respond to rapid social changes provoked by peace, and to understand the structural factors that privilege some groups and disadvantage others in peace processes. The authors aim to establish the different emotions wrapped up with feelings of compromise, as well as the kinds of social relationships on which it was premised and which it entailed. They provide an operational starting point that compromise amongst victims-perpetrators should be understood as a process that involves hope-anticipation of the future, forgiveness-redemption for perpetrators and forms of memory-remembrance of the conflict that transcend divided memories.

Over the last 10 years, the concept of value has emerged in both business and public life as part of an important process of measuring, benchmarking, and assuring the resources we invest and the outcomes we generate from our activities. In the context of public life, value is an important measure on the contribution to business and social good of activities for which strict financial measures are either inappropriate or fundamentally unsound. A systematic, interdisciplinary examination of public value is necessary to establish an essential definition and up-to-date picture of the field. In reflecting on the ‘public value project’, this book points to how the field has broadened well beyond its original focus on public sector management; has deepened in terms of the development of the analytical concepts and frameworks that linked the concepts together; and has been applied increasingly in concrete circumstances by academics, consultants, and practitioners. This book covers three main topics; deepening and enriching the theory of creating public value, broadening the theory and practice of creating public value to voluntary and commercial organisations and collaborative networks, and the challenge and opportunity that the concept of public value poses to social science and universities. Collectively, it offers new ways of looking at public and social assets against a backdrop of increasing financial pressure; new insights into changing social attitudes and perceptions of value; and new models for increasingly complicated collaborative forms of service delivery, involving public, private, and not-for-profit players.

This chapter offers a sociological analysis of the travails of the Northern Irish peace process that roots difficulties not in matters of the failure of human agency, such as lack of will, motivation, or commitment to peace, but in deeply structural fractures and fissures in Northern Irish society that help to explain the problem of agency. This chapter argues that agency and structure intersect and looks at the impact of Brexit on the future of the peace process.

This chapter gives voice to the sample of Sri Lankan victims. It addresses how the sample was obtained and studied before giving a historical account of Sri Lanka’s conflict and the ambivalence of its ‘victor’s peace’. The impact of the victor’s peace on the double victimhood of Tamils is the central motif for understanding the victimhood experience of Tamils. The victimhood experiences of Sinhalese victims are not ignored but they are contrasted with the double victimhood of Tamils. The chapter addresses the standard themes for capturing the voice of victims, including topics like competitive victimhood, attitudes towards the erstwhile enemy, their emotional landscape, such as feelings of anger, hope forgiveness and compromise, and grief and loss. The structural inequalities faced in particular by Tamils are addressed for their impact on the victimhood experience.

This chapter gives voice to our sample of Northern Irish victims. After a historical survey of the Northern Irish conflict and ‘the Troubles’, this chapter introduces the Northern Irish sample of victims and focuses on the central themes that they gave voice to. These include their understanding of the victim category and whether or not they understood this competitively to be inclusive or restricted, how they coped with stress and difficult memories, their emotional landscape, such as the meanings they attributed to compromise, hope, forgiveness, and the future, as well as their attitudes toward erstwhile enemies and ‘the other’, the reciprocity of the peace agreement and the fairness of the peace settlement, and their attitudes towards the past.

Described as a victor’s peace, the post-war situation in Sri Lanka has been characterised as one of deep division between the various ethnic groups with little attempt to address the roots of the conflict. With this finding in mind and using recent survey data, this chapter focuses on relations between the various self-identified ethnic communities—Sinhalese, Tamil, Sri Lankan—and their support for a range of mechanisms to deal with Sri Lanka’s violent past. The results suggest that not only do the various ethnic groups display little understanding of each other’s cultural traditions and are highly segregated in their living arrangements, but this is particularly the case when the Sinhalese and Tamil communities are considered. Similar findings emerge when views concerning how to deal with the past are considered. While the vast majority adopted a non-forgiving, or vengeful, stance in relation to those with a violent past, and a slight majority were opposed to amnesty, this is again particularly so among the Sinhalese and Tamil communities. This is not to deny, however, their somewhat more positive, or unifying and hopeful, view of interethnic relations in the future, particularly among those who endorsed a Sri Lankan identity.

The expression ‘No Future without Forgiveness’ of Archbishop Desmond Tutu seems to eternalize an existential truth about forging a way forward with victims and perpetrators in contexts of conflicts. This study on the post-war situation of Sri Lanka enquires into the possible religious resources which the victims of the 30-year-long civil war in Sri Lanka had recourse to in imparting forgiveness to erstwhile perpetrators. Religions are ambivalent in that they could mediate and promote peace and reconciliation and fuel conflicts as well. Home to four major religions, namely, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam, Sri Lanka is rich in religious resources of reconciliation, though these same religions have been guilty of inciting dissention and violence. Among the 75 interviewees who participated in the research on ‘Compromise after Conflict’ there were some who were suspicious of any possible religious contribution toward reconciliation between the Sinhalese and Tamils, though most victims had found religious resources helpful for regaining selfhood and courage to face the future with optimism.

This chapter gives voice to our sample of South African victims and explains the South African sample of victims. The chapter begins with a history of South Africa and the development of policies of racial segregation under the British and apartheid under Afrikaner nationalism. It then proceeds to develop the same themes that South Africa’s victims gave voice to, such that the chapter discusses South African victims’ notions of competitive victimhood, their emotional landscape, exploring the meaning of forgiveness, hope and the future in a South African context. Victims’ attitudes towards Whites are addressed as a legacy of apartheid, and the impact of this legacy is shown in the ambivalence victims have toward hope and the future. The structural inequalities faced by most first generation victims of apartheid are highlighted as they impact on victims’ hopes for the future.

This chapter sets out the main arguments of the volume. It outlines the sociological conceptualisation of compromise, which the individual chapters then develop, explore, elaborate and critique. The sociological conceptualisation is compared with approaches to compromise in political and moral philosophy and the advantages of a sociological approach are identified. The conceptualisation prioritises civility and tolerance in the public sphere and renders compromise into a social practice that is capable of enactment prior to attitude and value change. In this definition, compromise is a social practice that involves performing the ritualised behaviours and forms of talk that promote tolerance and civility towards former protagonists in the public sphere so that people can keep to the reciprocal obligations that mark the compromise. Compromise is both a norm (capable of being practised) and a normative (virtuous as an ideal).

The silencing of victims in peace processes is contrasted with the need to mainstream or centre them in peacebuilding. This mainstreaming is done via the idea of everyday life peacebuilding by victims. This chapter introduces the idea of everyday life. It explores how conflict brutalizes everyday life and looks at how this brutalization is manifested in Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland and South Africa. Sociological approaches to everyday life are outlined and the chapter explores how sociological understandings broaden the understanding and range of everyday life peacebuilding. A sociological lens is used to help us understand the victim category and how victimhood is socially constructed. The social construction of victims as a ‘problem’ in peace processes, although of different sorts, is contrasted with their role as moral beacons, which requires victims and victim issues to be mainstreamed rather than side lined in peace processes.

This chapter draws on empirical data from Northern Irish victims to give empirical grounding to the sociological theorisation of compromise. While the category ‘victim’ is a morally contested one and politically controversial, this chapter will show that first-generation victims have a capacity for compromise that is both remarkable, given their suffering, and bodes very positively for the future. The focus of the chapter is on what first-generation victims in Northern Ireland themselves understand by compromise, what it meant to them in their everyday lives, including the behaviours, actions and emotions they associated with compromise, and their social practice of compromise. We argue that the victimhood experience is for most first-generation victims one that naturally leads to compromise.

The victims’ voices captured in the previous three chapters are used in this chapter to develop the conceptual argument about the nature, limits and strengths of everyday life peacebuilding. A review and critique is given of the concept of everyday life peacebuilding as it has developed in International Relations Studies. The chapter argues that sociology’s special understanding of the nature of everyday life adds to discussions in International Relations Studies and elaborates the process in positive ways. Examples are given from the empirical data to show how sociologically, everyday life is not only a space where certain forms of peacebuilding are done, but a mode of reasoning, in which ‘getting along’ with one another after conflict as a way of thinking is made normal, routine and everyday.

This Afterword addresses both the theoretical robustness of the conceptualisation after its testing in the real world and its empirical utility in enlightening us about features of that real world which might otherwise have remained hidden. It is argued that the social practice of compromise allows the reproduction of society itself, making it possible for people to live together after conflict for the benefit of social change. Compromise, in short, is a social practice for sociability after conflict. This is a situational ethic grounded in people’s capacities to want people to get along, and for society to work, after conflict. It is also suggested that the empirical data on first-generation victims’ social practice of compromise opens up a whole new empirical agenda for victim research, particularly with respect to three issues specifically: understanding the risks posed by inter-generational victimhood; the need to understand the nature of forward-focused emotions like hope and forgiveness; and how these forward-focused emotions intersect with compromise.

The twentieth century witnessed the professionalisation of social science by making science its vocation. The twenty-first century must see social science become normative, with society its vocation. The paradox of neoliberalism is that its attack on the public university has forced social science to advance its public value and the grounds on which it is a public good in its own right, the outcome of which is that we must shift from science to society as our vocation. If society is to be the object of our life's commitment as social scientists – a vocation in that sense – then we pursue it with enthusiasm, sponsor and advance its interests, look to its renewal and improvement, and continually refine and enhance our understanding of it. This requires both a value-orientated and scientific approach, making social science scientific and normative at the same time. This new form of public social science is better suited to civic engagement and community empowerment as a form of co-produced knowledge appropriate to the wicked problems facing us in the twenty-first century. The argument, in other words, is that to better effect social renewal, we need first to renew social science.

Research Highlights and Abstract Using Northern Ireland as a case study, this article provides the first nationally representative and systematic study of victims' views on how to deal with the past; Focusing specifically on Northern Ireland, it both investigates and provides a comprehensive account of the marked divisions between the various religious groupings—Protestants, Catholics and the non-affiliated—in terms of a range of truth recovery mechanisms to deal with legacy of its violent past; It empirically investigates and validates two key predictors—perceptions of victimhood and general attitudes towards the past—in determining the source of these divisions It outlines the implications of our findings for other societies emerging from conflict. Truth recovery mechanisms have become a cornerstone of peacebuilding efforts in societies emerging from conflict. Yet, to date, the view of victims in post-conflict societies concerning such arrangements remains highly anecdotal and often second-hand in nature. Mindful of this omission and using Northern Ireland as a case study, this article investigates the views of victims towards a range of mechanisms to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland's violent past. Based on the 2011 Northern Ireland Social and Political Attitudes Survey, the results suggest some marked divisions in relation to this issue, with victims within the Catholic community being significantly more supportive of such initiatives than either Protestants or those with no religion. Moreover, while perceptions of victimhood emerge as the key predictor of attitudes among Protestants and the non-affiliated, general opinions on how to deal with the past are the key determinant of views among members of the Catholic community.

The release of ex-combatants and the mechanisms for their re-integration within society has become an increasingly controversial issue in peace settlements. Yet to date, the view of victims concerning such arrangements in post-conflict societies remains unexplored. Mindful of this omission and using Northern Ireland as a case study, this article investigates the relationship between victimisation and attitudes towards the treatment of former political prisoners. Based on the 2011 Northern Ireland Social and Political Attitudes Survey, the results suggest that individual victims—those who directly and/or indirectly experienced violent incidents—are notably less supportive of a punitive approach towards the treatment of former political prisoners than non-victims. Moreover, this is particularly the case when victims from within the Catholic community are considered. The Northern Ireland evidence suggests that victims can act as a positive and inclusive force in terms of the rehabilitation and re-integration...

Leverhulme Trust in funding the research on which this paper is based under grant number F/00 152/AK.

Questo articolo indaga le attivita e l’uso di reti di studiosi da parte di Teodoro Monticelli, il geologo, funzionario e segretario dell’Accademia scientifica di Napoli all’inizio del XIX secolo. L’autore pone in evidenza come Monticelli costrui una rete di connessioni con i suoi colleghi studiosi e geologi in tutta la penisola italiana, che, allo stesso tempo, era collegata a una rete internazionale di studiosi, centrata principalmente su Parigi, ma che si estendeva alla Russia e al Nuovo Mondo. Tali reti venivano sostenute attraverso lo scambio di informazioni per corrispondenza e la condivisione di pubblicazioni, e attraverso il dono, il baratto, lo scambio e la vendita di esemplari geologici. Grazie alla mediazione di viaggiatori, alcuni italiani, piu spesso stranieri, ostacoli come le cattive comunicazioni e la censura furono superati: la loro funzione era di trasportare lettere, pubblicazioni ed esemplari geologici tra i diversi centri in cambio di raccomandazioni che consentivono loro accesso a studiosi, collezioni, universita e accademie. In particolare, la rete all’interno della penisola italiana cerco consapevolmente di sviluppare una scienza “italiana”. A Napoli Monticelli uso il fascino scientifico del Vesuvio e il suo speciale ruolo di principale esperto locale per promuovere le riforme all’interno del Regno delle Due Sicilie e per realizzare la sua visione di Napoli come centro di indagine scientifica.

The rights and needs of victims have become an increasingly controversial issue in post-conflict societies. Yet to date, the views of victims concerning the new political arrangements in post-conflict settlements remain unexplored. Mindful of this omission and using Northern Ireland as a case study, this article investigates the relationship between victimhood status and attitudes towards the new political arrangements of devolved government in Northern Ireland, namely the Assembly and its power-sharing Executive. Based on the 2010 Northern Ireland Election Survey, the results suggest that individual victims – those who had directly and indirectly experienced violent instances and perceived themselves as victims – are notably more supportive of these new political arrangements and this relationship remains regardless of whether Protestants or Catholics are considered. A key factor in accounting for this phenomenon is their greater endorsement of its systems of governance, or underlying consociational principles of inclusion and decision making, as well as a positive view of its current political leaders. The Northern Ireland evidence suggests that victims can act as ‘moral beacons’, providing a positive and inclusive force for political accommodation and societal reconciliation in societies emerging from conflict.

This paper serves as the Editorial Introduction that heads the special issue on post-conflict societies in the social sciences and it reviews the growing literature on this topic. The field offers an interdisciplinary space not just for the various social sciences to interface, but for social science to encounter theology, philosophy and ethics. The field can be divided into three themes: the management of post-conflict emotions; transitional justice; and statebuilding. The review outlines the opportunity post-conflict societies provide the social sciences to demonstrate their ‘impact’ and ‘public value’, as well as the challenges the field throws out to social sciences, in particular to their moral relativism and the traditional disciplinary closure from moral questions.

‘Victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ are problematic legal, moral and political categories, and public policies towards them are complicated by their contested status. This is particularly the case in Northern Ireland where conceptions of perpetrators and victims, including the right to the label ‘victim’, has caused much division and debate. Despite this controversy, to date previous research in relation to this issue has been extremely limited and this is particularly the case when evidence based on nationally representative survey data is considered. It is with this omission in mind that this paper focuses on the relationship between victimhood status and public perceptions concerning the perpetrators of the conflict within this society. Using the 2004 Life and Times Survey, the results suggest some notable differences between the two main religious communities—Protestant and Catholic—both in terms of their victimhood status as well as whom they hold primarily responsible for the violence. The evidence suggests ...