Does Language Foster Reconciliation? Evidence From the Former Yugoslavia

Abstract

Despite a surge in research on post-conflict reconciliation, the specific factors which promote reconciliation remain a subject of debate. In particular, the possible role of shared language in fostering reconciliation has received little scholarly attention. This paper examines two possible channels through which shared language may facilitate reconciliation, and tests these using a new survey dataset of 446 individuals from Serbia. As expected, the results indicated that shared language reduces the negative effect of conflict on intergroup trust and friendship, two crucial components of reconciliation. Furthermore, the results suggest that in the former Yugoslavia this effect is generated by the communication-enabling aspects of a shared language, rather than its other properties such as acting as a marker of ethnic or cultural identity.

Keywords

conflict reconciliation language Yugoslavia communication intergroup contact

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajdukovic

Biruski

D. C.

2008. “Caught between the Ethnic Sides: Children Growing up in a Divided Post-War Community.” Int J Behav Development 32, 4: 337‐347.

Allport

. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Perseus Books. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub Co.

Anderson . 1983. Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin And Spread Of Nationalism. London: Verso Books.

Axelrod

Hamilton

W. D.

. 27 March 1981. “The Evolution of Cooperation.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 211: 44891390–44891396.

Bailyn

. 2010. “To What Degree Are Croatian and Serbian the Same Language?: Evidence from a Translation Study.” J Slavic Linguistics 18, 2: 181–219.

Bar-Tal

Bennink

. 2004. “The Nature of Reconciliation as an Outcome and as a Process.” In From Conflict Resolution to ReconciliationYaacov Bar-Siman-Tov and Yehudith Auerbach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boas

T. C.

Christenson

D. P.

Glick

D. M.

. ‘Recruiting Large Online Samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics.’ Pol Sci Res Meth 8, no. 2 (April 2020): 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.28

Bormann

N-C.

Cederman

L-E.

Vogt

. 2017. Language, Religion, and Ethnic Civil War. Journal of Conflict Resolution 61, no. 4 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002715600755

Buzasi

. 2015. “Languages, communication potential and generalized trust in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence based on the Afrobarometer Survey.” Soc Sci Res 49: 141–155.

10.

Cederman

L-E.

Vogt

. 2017. “Dynamics and Logics of Civil War.” J Conflict Resolution.

11.

Cehajic

Brown

Castano

. 2008. “Forgive and Forget? Antecedents and Consequences of Intergroup Forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Polit Psychol 29, 3: 351–367.

12.

Collier

Hoeffler

. 2002. “On the Incidence of Civil War in Africa.” J Conflict Resolution 46: 113–28.

13.

Delhey

. 2007. “Do Enlargements Make the European Union Less Cohesive? An Analysis of Trust between EU Nationalities.” JCMS: J Common Market Stud 45, 2: 253–279.

14.

Dyrstad

. 2012. “After ethnic civil war.” J Peace Res 49, 6: 817–831.

15.

Easterly

Levine

. 1997. “Africa's Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions.” Q J Econ 112, 4: 1203–1250.

16.

Fearon

J. D.

Laitin

D. D.

. 2003. “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War.” Am Polit Sci Rev 97: 75–90.

17.

Friedman

Victor A

. 2017. Languages of the Balkans. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

18.

Gellner . 1983. Ernest, and Director of the Center for the Study of Nationalism Ernest Gellner. Nations And Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

19.

Gerritsen

Lubbers

. 2010. “Unknown Is Unloved? Diversity and Inter-Population Trust in Europe.” Eur Union Polit 112: 267–287.

20.

Gibson

J. L

. 2004. “Does Truth Lead to Reconciliation? Testing the Causal Assumptions of The South African Truth and Reconciliation Process.” Am J Polit Sci 48: 2.

21.

Gibson

J. L

. 2007. “Truth” and “Reconciliation” as Social Indicators.” Soc Indicators Res 81, 2: 257–281.

22.

Ginsburgh

Ortuño-Ortín

Weber

. 1 June 2005. “Disenfranchisement in Linguistically Diverse Societies: The Case of the European Union.” J Eur Econ Assoc 3, 4: 946–965.

23.

Granovetter

M. S

. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” Am J Sociol 78, 6: 1360–1380.

24.

Greenberg

R. D

. 2004. Language and Identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25.

Haarmann

. 1999. In Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, edited by Fishman

, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26.

Habyarimana

Humphreys

Posner

D. N.

, et al. 2007. “Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision?.” Am Polit Sci Rev 101, 4: 709–725.

27.

Hewstone

Kenworthy

Cairns , et al. 2008. “Stepping Stones to Reconciliation in Northern Ireland: Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and Trust.” In Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press

28.

Hroch

. 1999. “The Slavic World.” In Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, edited by Fishman

Joshua

, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

29.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

. The Conflicts. International Criminal Tribunal For the Former Yugoslavia. (2018). Accessed 8 October 2018.

30.

Kam

Franzese

. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

31.

King

Robert

. 2001. “The Poisonous Potency of Script: Hindi and Urdu.” Int J Sociol Lang 150: 43–59

32.

Kosic

Tauber

C. D.

. 2010. “Promoting Reconciliation through Youth: Cross-Community Initiatives in Vukovar, Croatia.” Peace Conflict: J Peace Psychol 16, 1: 81–95.

33.

Kriesberg

. 2007. “Reconciliation: Aspects, Growth, and Sequences.” Int J Peace Stud 12: 1

34.

Kumove

. 2020. “Diversity, Semi-Communication and Cross-Country Trust: A Quantitative Analysis.” Soc Sci Res 86: 102392.

35.

Lacina

Nils Petter Gleditsch . June 2005. “Monitoring Trends in Global Combat: A New Dataset of Battle Deaths.” Eur J Popul/Revue Européenne de Démographie 21, 2: 145–166.

36.

Laitin

D. D

. May 2000. “Language conflict and violence: the straw that strengthens the camel's back.” Eur J Sociol 41: 97–1137.

37.

Levay

K. E.

Freese

Druckman

J. N.

. ‘The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples’. SAGE Open 6, no. 1 (1 January 2016): 2158244016636433. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433

38.

Liu

A. H

. 2015. Standardizing Diversity: The Political Economy of Language Regimes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

39.

Lupu

Peisakhin

. 2017. “The Legacy of Political Violence across Generations.” Am J Polit Sci 61, 4: 836–851.

40.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

J. M.

, et al. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annu Rev Sociol 27: 415‐444.

41.

Merelli

Annalisa

. 2017. Linguists Say Most Balkan Languages Are the Same. And Nationalists Are Mad about it. Quartz. Retrived from: https://qz.com/948383/declaration-of-common-language-says-bosnian-croatian-montenegrin-and-serbian-are-the-same-language/.

42.

Mitchell

Miller

. 2019. “Reconciliation through Language Learning? A Case Study of the Turas Irish Language Project in East Belfast.” Ethnic Racial Stud 42, 2: 235–253.

43.

Noor

Brown

Gonzalez

, et al. 2008a. “On Positive Psychological Outcomes: What Helps Groups With a History of Conflict to Forgive and Reconcile With Each Other?.” Personal Soc Psychol Bull

44.

Noor

James Brown

Prentice

. 2008b. “Precursors and Mediators of Intergroup Reconciliation in Northern Ireland: A New Model.” Br J Soc Psychol 47, 3: 481–495.

45.

Ostler

. 2005. Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World. New York: HarperCollins.

46.

Ostrom

. 2003. “Toward a Behavioural Theory Linking Trust, Reciprocity, and Reputation.” In Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons From Experimental Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

47.

Patten

. 2010. “The Most Natural State: Herder and Nationalism.” Hist Polit Thought 51, 4: 657–689.

48.

Pettigrew

T. F

. 1998. “Intergroup Contact Theory.” Annu Rev Psychol 49: 65–85.

49.

Putnam

Robert

. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

50.

Reidy

Taylor

Merrilees

, et al. March 2015. “The Political Socialization of Youth in a Post-Conflict Community.” Int J Intercultural Relations 45.

51.

Rettig

. 2008. “Gacaca: Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation in Postconflict Rwanda?.” Afr Stud Rev 51, 3: 25–50. (December

52.

Samuels

David J.

Zucco

Cesar

. 2013. ‘Using Facebook as a Subject Recruitment Tool for Survey-Experimental Research’. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.

53.

Shnabel

Nadler

. 2008. “A Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation: Satisfying the Differential Emotional Needs of Victim and Perpetrator as a Key to Promoting Reconciliation.” J Personal Soc Psychol 94, 1 January 2008: 116–132.

54.

Short

. 2005. “Reconciliation and the Problem of Internal Colonialism.” J Intercultural Stud 26, 3: 267–282.

55.

Sigelman

Welch

. 1993. “The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Black-White Interaction and Positive Racial Attitudes.” Social Forces 71, 3: 781–795.

56.

Simkus

. 2007. “Guest Editor's Introduction: The SEESSP Project.” Int J Sociol 37: 3–314.

57.

Sonnad

Nikhil

. 2017. ‘Montenegrin: The World Has a Brand-New Language, and It’s a Win for Nationalists — Quartz’. Quartz. https://qz.com/1158964/montenegrin-the-world-has-a-brand-new-language-and-its-a-win-for-nationalists/.

58.

Staub

. 2013. “Building a Peaceful Society: Origins, Prevention, and Reconciliation after Genocide and Other Group Violence.” Am Psychol 68, 7: 576–589.

59.

Staub

. 2006. “Reconciliation after Genocide, Mass Killing, or Intractable Conflict: Understanding the Roots of Violence, Psychological Recovery, and Steps toward a General Theory.” Polit Psychol 27, 6: 867–894.

60.

Takševa

. 2019. “Post-War Yugoslavism and Yugonostalgia as Expressions of Multiethnic Solidarity and Tolerance in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” New Diversities 21‐1.

61.

Tam

Hewstone

Kenworthy

J. B.

, et al. June 2008. “Postconflict Reconciliation: Intergroup Forgiveness and Implicit Biases in Northern Ireland.” J Soc Issues 64: 303–2320

62.

Tropp

Hawi

O'Brien

, et al. “Intergroup Contact and the Potential for Post-Conflict Reconciliation: Studies in Northern Ireland and South Africa.” Peace Conflict J Peace Psychol 23: (16 February 2017). https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000236.

63.

Van Parijs

. 2006. “Linguistic Diversity: What Is It? And Does It Matter?.” In Understanding Diversity: Mapping and Measuring. Milan, Italy: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

64.

Voci

Hadziosmanovic

Cakal

, et al. 2017. “Impact of Pre-War and Post-War Intergroup Contact on Intergroup Relations and Mental Health: Evidence from a Bosnian Sample.” Peace Conflict: J Peace Psychol 23, 3: 250–259.

65.

Žeželj

I. L.

Maria Ioannou

R. F.

Psaltis

, et al. 2017. “The Role of Inter-Ethnic Online Friendships in Prejudice Reduction in Post-Conflict Societies: Evidence from Serbia, Croatia and Cyprus.” Comput Hum Behav 76, November: 386–395.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.47 MB