(Photo: Murr Tower, used by militia fighters from various factions during the Lebanese Civil War)

by Thia M. Sagherian-Dickey

“Why are you asking us Christians about Shias? We don’t have a problem with them. The tensions are between Sunnis and Shias. You should be asking them such questions.”

I was meeting with a former militia fighter who was now actively involved in reconciliation, both locally in Lebanon and internationally. I had asked to meet with him as one of several avenues for distributing surveys as part of my research study. His rhetorical question was not unusual. His question also underscored an assumption that others had made regarding the aim of my study: Who trusts whom more (or less) in Lebanon? This, however, was not my research question at all.

My research interests lie mainly in understanding the dynamics of relations between social groups from a social psychological perspectives. In particular, I’m interested in exploring the dynamics of trust between groups in societies characterized by historical tensions or conflict – what the processes involved in building trust are, and the role that trust plays in reducing prejudice, increasing a willingness for social change, and building peaceful relations. Scholars argue that trust is a key factor in the reconciliation process and an important element of peacebuilding. Daniel Bar-Tal, a leading expert in conflict resolution and reconciliation processes between Israelis and Palestinians, believes that in societies with a long history of conflict, peacebuilding requires a long reconciliation process. Of key importance, he says, is the “peaceful coexistence based on mutual trust and acceptance, cooperation, and consideration of each other’s needs”.[1] Three of the questions I have been exploring in my research are how trust between groups is conceptualized in post-conflict or post-Accord/Agreement societies[2], what are the mechanisms underlying this trust, and how is trust a function of social change? In other words, what does trust look like in practice at the intergroup level, and specifically for the Lebanese people?

While carrying out my research, I encountered different types of reactions. The responses were mainly made by my contacts, but also by participants who would write little notes at the end of the questionnaire they had been asked to complete. I took these responses seriously. While I haven’t included them in my analysis, I consider them to be anecdotal evidence of a rhetoric of underlying emotions and appraisals of the current situation in Lebanon. One type of reaction I was often met with was simulated in a semi-smile, perhaps an exchange of a look with a friend, and then a sort of sigh and emphatic nod of the head, “oh that’s a very important topic. We need trust in this country. Lebanese people? They distrust each other. There’s no trust here. Especially that group” [insert specific sect or political group that they clearly were not a member of]. Another typical reaction tended along the lines of “let me tell you about politics and sectarianism in Lebanon.” This was then accompanied by a few pointers on what I should have included in my questionnaire. Still a third type of reaction was one of outright distrust of me and my research assistants. In some case, we were suspected of being spies, of working for the CIA, or worse… for ISIS. While I struggled to wrap my head around how Daesh would make use of my data, I was struck by the prevalence of fear, anxiety, and distrust, even when the research assistant was a distant cousin of the would-be participant.

I was, therefore, somewhat worried about what I would find in my data. The suspicions and anxieties notwithstanding, the analysis produced some interesting and encouraging results. I won’t go into detail about the results here – perhaps another time, as they are informative and beg follow-up – but I will share a couple of key findings and the implications that we who have been called by God to love our neighbors and challenged by Christ to be peacemakers may wish to consider when it comes to peacebuilding in places characterized by intractable and violent conflict.

• People are willing to trust members of other groups in distinct situations. Not all situations are alike, and Sunnis, Shias, Druzes, Maronite Christians and other Christian minority groups consistently differentiated between conditions or situations where they were willing to trust members of other sects. These situations could broadly be grouped into mundane or everyday situations (such as trusting a member of another sect to be honest in a financial exchange in a local shop) and situations perceive to be more politicized in nature (such as trusting a member of another sect to be accurate in the political representation of the other sect abroad).
• People are willing to trust members of other sects when they perceive the other sect to treat them justly and fairly. This was a particularly strong finding for trusting the other sect in politicized situations. In other words, regardless of outcome, the just process through treatment was an important factor in influencing trusting the other.

I’m encouraged by these findings because they inform me that despite the skepticism and anxiety, there are clearly situations where people in Lebanon are willing to trust members of other religious sects. In fact, drawing a sort of boundary around various conditions for interaction can be seen as a protective factor[3] that allows people to step out of their comfort zone in small steps. We should be encouraging this and celebrating it as a sign of real hope. At the same time, that justice in treatment plays such a key role in increasing trust towards others is good news to me. We should be supporting this and leading by example. While this world is often unjust, God repeatedly reminds us that He loves justice and calls us to be pursuers of peace.

I know that the situation in Lebanon and more widely across the region gives cause for serious concern and hopelessness. Yet, in my findings I see a sign of hope and a practical starting point.

_____________________

[1] Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21, 351-365.

[2] Post-Accord or post-Agreement refers to societies with historical conflict that – while the various groups or factions may have signed an agreement to end outright hostilities and active violence – continue to experience relative tensions and bouts of active violence. This term has been used by some peace and conflict scholars, such as Taylor and colleagues (2014) to refer to Northern Ireland following the Good Friday Agreement signed in 1998. In Lebanon, this refers to the period following the Taif Accord, signed in 1989.

[3] Hughes, J., Campbell, A., & Jenkins, R. (2011). Contact, trust, and social capital in Northern Ireland: a qualitative study of three mixed communities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(6), 967-985.