Personal & Institutional Development — ABOUT RWANDA’S NOTORIOUS ‘HARD BREAKING’ AND HOW ‘BRIDGING’ CAN BE SET IN MOTION AND EFFECTIVELY PUT TO WORK

To start with, bridging is understood as being the process of doing away with psychosocial differences or gaps resulting from instances of often politically-motivated violence that set people apart ones from others or, as Shigeoka & Marsh (2020, webpage) put it, the process of ‘bridging differences’ by “trying to overcome a history of conflicts — interpersonal or political — or forging an alliance between once-opposing groups to work toward a common goal”; more details on ‘bridging’ can be obtained from Powell & Heydemann (2020, either HTML or PDF). ?So, this article discusses mainly the such-understood process of bridging especially inasmuch as it is considered to be the designated approach to building a sustainable/lasting peace in societies that have experienced ‘hard breaking’ at some point such as Rwanda.

It is indeed ‘common knowledge’ now —— i.e. “knowledge that most educated people know or can find out easily in an encyclopedia or dictionary […] or can be easily looked up, or appears in many sources” (Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning: 2021, webpage) —— that the history of Rwanda has been characterized by an outrageous ‘Political Myopia’ of the elites who succeeded ones others to power from the Pre-Colonial Period, through the Colonial Period, to the Post-Colonial Period that recorded the ‘hardest breaking’ of the Genocide against the Tutsi that was perpetrated in the country between April and July 1994 (see here and here), as the said ‘common knowledge’ as a whole can, for instance, be reviewed from the following compilations of relevant pieces of literature:

● Pieces of factual evidence for Rwandan elite’s ‘Political Myopia’ during the Pre-Colonial Period (i.e. pre-1900s) were exposed through the last seven [07] dotted bullets of this article/post.

● Pieces of factual evidence for Rwandan elite’s ‘Political Myopia’ during the Colonial Period (i.e. 1900s-1962) were portrayed in detail in this article/post.

● Pieces of factual evidence for Rwandan elite’s ‘Political Myopia’ during the Post-Colonial Period (i.e. post-1962) were first displayed in this article/post, and were further completed by other pieces of factual evidence later on presented in this article/post.

All these pieces of historical factual evidence actually in an undeniable way prove that ‘Political Myopia’ of Rwandan elites who succeeded ones others to power is the factor that has led the country to the Genocide that was perpetrated against the Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994, and Peacemakers, Peacebuilders and Peace Educators should not keep quiet in front of it anymore.

Back to the discussion mentioned above at the very beginning of this article, it is conducted hereafter from the perspective of the areas of Ethnic Studies, Othering & Belonging, as well as Equity & Inclusion, with special focus on the provisions made by John A. Powell, “the Director of the Othering & Belonging Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, a research institute that brings together scholars, community advocates, communicators, and policymakers to identify and eliminate the barriers to an inclusive, just, and sustainable society and to create transformative change toward a more equitable world” (Othering & Belonging Institute: 2021, webpage).

John A. Powell indeed, a scholar versed in the areas of Ethnic Studies, Othering & Belonging, as well as Equity & Inclusion, contends that “Only Bridging Can Heal a World of Breaking: Meaningful bridging — like real integration — must acknowledge, respect, and appreciate difference as a starting point”. This contention is actually the title of a groundbreaking article he published in Yes! Magazine (Powell: 2019, webpage) whose short full-text is reproduced hereafter:

[...]. Diversity can be a great strength, but it is susceptible to manipulation when not accompanied by community leaders from all backgrounds willing and able to bridge across difference. The idea of “bridging” provides a path to healing the practices of “breaking” across communities of difference that are so prevalent today [emphasis added].

Now used more broadly, bridging [emphasis added] originates in social capital theory. It’s a concept used to investigate trust and social cohesion, as well as reciprocity and civic bonds. It describes relationships between and among different groups of people in society, and is a form of social capital, which examines connections that connect people across a cleavage that often divides society (such as race, class, or religion). Bridging occurs when members of different groups reach beyond their own group to members of other groups.?Examples of this would be moving [emphasis added] into integrated neighborhoods or joining sports clubs or places of worship where people hold different identity markers from oneself [emphasis added].

Several years ago, here at the University of California, Berkeley, we began to examine bridging through the lens of “othering and belonging”. “Othering” occurs when a person or group is not seen as a full member of society, as an outsider or “less than” or inferior to other people or groups. It happens at an interpersonal level across many dimensions such as race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and others, but is also expressed at the group level. When governments and other elites participate in the othering of certain groups, othering reaches its most dangerous level, and can lead to violence, and even genocide.

One of the mechanisms of othering is the practice of breaking — the antithesis of bridging. Breaking occurs when members of a group not only turn inward (known as “bonding”, in social capital terms), but also turn against the “outsider” group or the other. The otherness and threat of the out-group can be used to build psychological or physical walls. It tells the other, “You are not one of us. You don’t belong and you should not get the same public resources or attention and regard that my group gets”. Breaking emerges from a belief that people who are not part of the favored group are somehow dangerous or unworthy. It is largely based on fear, and a feeling of insecurity. These emotions may be grounded on a belief that “those people” — whoever they are — are stealing our jobs, harming our neighborhoods, or that they pose a threat to our sacred values and norms. […].

Meaningful bridging — such as real integration — must acknowledge, respect, and appreciate difference as a starting point, not try to erase differences. Bridging requires more than just acknowledging the other but listening empathically and holding space for the other within our collective stories. This, of course, is not easy [emphasis added]. As author bell hooks [sic] reminds us, bridges get walked on.

There are different types of bridges. Short bridges require less effort, less risk, and less vulnerability to erect. Longer bridges are those that require more of us and our communities. They entail greater risk, but also greater reward.

To bridge requires strength and empathy, but it does not require that we sacrifice our values or our identity. It also entails vulnerability [emphasis added], as when Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern responded to New Zealand’s mass shooting by?affirming values of diversity, refuge, and compassion.

Bridging is so important because only bridging can heal a world of breaking, which is the dominant practice and discourse today. Breaking not only feeds off broad-scale social changes and polarization[1], it also propels them.

By imagining together, we can use bridges to hear the other and help construct a larger more inclusive “we” where no group dominates or is left out [emphasis added].

In a nutshell, John A. Powell praises and advocates for the so rare good practice he calls ‘real integration’ that results into what is usually known as Unity in/from Diversity — i.e. a ‘diversity’ that is not erased and/or denied in the first place. On the other hand, John A. Powell fustigates and cautions against the so frequent hypocritical practice he calls ‘assimilation’ [one would also call it ‘no real / false integration’] that results into what may be called Diversity in/from Unity — i.e. a ‘diversity’ that is erased and/or denied in the first place.

Further about this issue of Breaking being resolved by the process of Bridging, from a report shared through an electronic communication circulated to their mailing list on November 22, 2019, in the editorial message Senior Editor for Yes! Magazine, Chris Winters refers to a story reported by Cashmere (2019) about a certain Shannon Martinez, “a former neo-Nazi who now works to deradicalize people who are still in the [neo-Nazi] movement”, which story contains important passages that are particularly relevant to the concept of Bridging especially flagging up the point that all stems from unhealed traumas entrenched in people in their early ages of childhood (Cashmere: Idem).

On the other hand, when such unhealed traumas are nurtured, fueled and entrenched by unrelenting propaganda by the elites in power, we end up degenerating to the point of eagerly engaging in various campaigns of killing fellow human beings such as wars and even genocides. Powell (2021, webpage) calls such degeneration of ours “hard breaking [emphasis added] — which is the inclination to deny the humanity of others, and see them as a problem and a threat”. Those campaigns of killing fellow human beings such as wars and even genocides, once we get the chance of knowing the truth of how we really got to such level of inhumanity, we finally come to bitterly regret them as is illustrated by the following so significantly relevant quote from Michalinos Zembylas (Zembylas: 2007, p.207):

In Erich Marie Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front (1982), Paul, the main character, a German soldier during World War I, talks to a soldier he has stabbed and held in his arms until his death. “Comrade, I did not want to kill you… But you were only an idea to me before, an abstraction that lived in my mind and called forth its appropriate response. It was that abstraction I stabbed. But now, for the first time, I see you are a man like me. I thought of your hand grenades, of your bayonet, of your rifle; now I see your wife and your face and our fellowship. Forgive me, comrade. We always see it too late. Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony — Forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy? (Remarque, 1982, p.223)”.

Corroborating the above-portrayed whole idea that all stems from unhealed traumas entrenched in people in their early ages of childhood, which traumas are kept ‘alive and kicking’ by their being continually nurtured, fueled and entrenched by unrelenting propaganda by the elites in power such that we end up degenerating to the point of eagerly engaging in various campaigns of killing fellow human beings such as wars and even genocides and then, later on, once we get the chance of knowing the truth of how we really got to such level of inhumanity, we finally come to bitterly regret them, testimonies like the ones contained in this video on the case of?the Genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994 can also greatly serve the purpose of illustration.

In the final analysis of the concept of Bridging, following are some of the key practical advices and suggestions among others that are given by experts in the matter:

● ? The question is often presented: Do I have to bridge with my enemy […], with racists, with the devil? My response is to start with short bridges. Maybe that is your family, A GROUP YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON WITH BUT WHERE YOU NEED TO PRACTICE MORE LISTENING, MORE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THEIR SUFFERING, MORE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU SHARE — NOT WHAT DIVIDES YOU [capitalization added]. As we get more practice, we can explore long bridges. BUT I ALSO CAUTION AGAINST ASSUMING SOMEONE IS THE DEVIL?[capitalization added]?? (Powell: 2021, webpage). Indeed, as reported by Shigeoka & Marsh (2020, webpage), ??research?by Emile Bruneau and Nour Kteily suggests that dehumanizing a member of another group is strongly associated with feelings of hostility and aggression toward that group — these are the types of feelings that “feed cycles of intergroup violence”, write Bruneau and Kteily. Another?study?found that people who dehumanize their political opponents see greater moral differences between their groups and even prefer greater social distance from them — in effect, the opposite of bridging??.

● ? Bridging is not about persuasion; it’s about understanding. […]. The heart of bridging work lies in trying to understand someone else’s perspective [emphasis added]. While you might not share their views, you don’t dismiss them; you dig deeper to try to appreciate where those views came from. This often requires asking questions and being willing to suspend judgment. The benefits of this type of perspective taking are profound: One?study, led by UCLA researcher Margaret Shih, suggests that when a member of one ethnic group tries to see the world through the eyes of someone of a different ethnicity, they report liking members of that group more and are more likely to help them out ? (Shigeoka & Marsh (2020, webpage).

● ? Bridging requires modesty and humility. To bridge differences, you usually need to accept that you don’t have all the answers or own a monopoly on the truth—an outlook that researchers refer to as “intellectual humility”[emphasis added]. This is especially important because bridging often involves contact between people from different cultures or communities. You probably won’t get very far in your bridge-building efforts if you presume that your own tradition or story is definitely the right one. This is true whether you’re talking about major historical events or your own family’s history: You need to recognize that your narrative isn’t the only one that matters ? (Shigeoka & Marsh (2020, webpage).

● ? Bridging is not without risk [emphasis added]. Bridging often involves taking risks and exposing vulnerability. You may risk having your overtures rejected, and you may often need to express feelings of hurt, anger, or disappointment. “The first person takes the greatest risk, but once that happens, others are likely to follow suit,” says powell [sic]. Perhaps most of all, when you truly try to hear someone else’s views, you risk being changed or influenced by what you hear. “That willingness to be transformed is also a necessary part to do authentic bridging work”, says Bailey. “I don’t think you can walk away from a bridging scenario, particularly when you’re bridging differences, and remain exactly the same” ? (Shigeoka & Marsh (2020, webpage).

● ? Not everyone should bridge [emphasis added]. Partly because of those risks, it’s important to recognize that not everyone can or should be a Bridge Builder, or feel compelled to build bridges in every situation. The work of bridging should not be done by demand. It’s ethically dubious — and, research suggests, often counterproductive — to ask people to bridge differences when they’re being discriminated against or otherwise denied social power. Before they’re ready to bridge, some must heal from personal trauma. And it can be psychologically harmful, not to mention physically dangerous, to try to forge a connection with someone who fundamentally denies your right to exist or threatens you with violence ? (Shigeoka & Marsh (2020, webpage).

Needless to write a lot, a word to the wise is enough — @Unity_MemoryRw [MINUBUMWE on Twitter]; Minubumwe Rwanda on Facebook.

NB: Other contributions lining up with the perspective of the present article include the following:

●Contribution to Building the Unity of Rwandans — AS A RWANDAN PEACE EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL WORRIED BY HIS COUNTRY’S PEACEFULNESS, FOLLOWING IS A POOL OF IDEAS I’M SUGGESTING TO DRAW ON IN CONTRIBUTION TO BUILDING THE UNITY OF RWANDANS (available here).

●Personal Development — INDIVIDUALS’ “PARTIAL TRUTHS” AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE ULTIMATELY SOUGHT-AFTER “TRUTH” ESPECIALLY FOR RECONCILIATION PURPOSES (available here).

●RECONCILIATION IN FOCUS: APPROACHING RECONCILIATION IN PEACEBUILDING PRACTICE: Briefing Paper by Conciliation Resources (shared with the then- National Unity and Reconciliation Commission [NURC] @RwandaUnity through this link).

References

Cashmere, D. J. (2019) How to Make Amends for a Life of Far-Right Radicalism. Article published on November 18, 2019 in Yes! Magazine, available here.

Othering & Belonging Institute (2021) John A. Powell. University of California, Berkeley. Available here.

Powell, J. A. (2019) Only Bridging Can Heal a World of Breaking: Meaningful bridging — like real integration — must acknowledge, respect, and appreciate difference as a starting point. Article published on November 12, 2019 in Yes! Magazine, available here.

Powell, J. A. (2021) Bridging or Breaking? The Stories We Tell Will Create the Future We Inhabit. Article published on February 15, 2021 in Non-Profit Quarterly [NPQ], available here.

Powell, J. A. & Heydemann, R. (2020) On Bridging: Evidence and Guidance from Real-World Cases. Article published on August 19, 2020 by Othering & Belonging Institute of the University of California, Berkeley, available as HTML here and as PDF here.

Shigeoka, S. & Marsh, J. (2020) Eight Keys to Bridging Our Differences. Article published on July 22, 2020 in Greater Good Magazine: Science-Based Insights for a Meaningful Life, available here.?

Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning (2021) Common Knowledge. Article published by Yale University in New Haven, CT, available here.

Zembylas, M. (2007) The Politics of Trauma: Empathy, Reconciliation and Peace Education. In Journal of Peace Education Vol.4, No.2, pp.207-224. Available here.

Endnote

[1] Endnote added by the author of this article: Explanations of what ‘polarization’ is all about may be obtained from here and here.