PATHS TO PEACE: CONFLIT MANAGEMENT,CONFLIT RESOLUTION, RECONCILIATION AND PEACEBUILDING

From Co-existence to Shared Society: A Paradigm Shift in Intercommunity Peacebuilding Among Jews and Arabs in Israel Ran Kuttner 1,2

1 Peace and Conflict Management Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

2 Academic Advisor, Givat Haviva, Menashe, Israel

Keywords

shared society, dialogue,

relational peacebuilding.

Correspondence

Ran Kuttner, Peace and Conflict

Management Studies, University

of Haifa, Haifa, Israel; e-mail:

[email protected].

[Correction added on 4 August

2017, after first online publica-

tion: Other author affiliation has

been added.]

Abstract

The discourse regarding Jewish–Arab intercommunity peacebuilding pro- cesses is undergoing major changes in recent years, gradually shifting

from “coexistence” as the desired outcome to “shared society.” This arti-

cle suggests that this transition portrays a paradigm shift that should be

acknowledged and taken into account by peacebuilding activists and con-

flict specialists. The first section describes various common understand-

ings of this shift in the context of Jewish-Arab relations in Israel.

Section two will describe the underpinnings of the paradigm shift from

individualistic to relational understanding of the self and argue that this

shift is consistent with the wish for transition to “shared society” and to

develop more dialogic frameworks of groups’ shared living. Section three

will present a case study, the work of Givat Haviva, emphasizing the rela-

tional premises that can be found in its methodology to cultivate a shared

society among Jews and Arabs in Israel.

Transitions: From Coexistence to Shared Society in Israeli Peacebuilding Efforts

The discourse regarding Jewish–Arab intercommunity peacebuilding processes is undergoing major changes in recent years, gradually shifting from “coexistence” as the desired outcome to “shared society.”

This shift derives from a disappointment in the vision of coexistence, realizing that this is a thin, unsatis-

factory vision of a cohesive society (Salomon & Issawi, 2009). The shift holds a quest, I suggest, to culti-

vate a more dialogic perception of human interaction, in which groups and individuals partake in an

ongoing process of co-constructing their joint reality, joint future, and even their joint identity. In this

article, I offer a conceptual clarification of this shift, suggesting that it is consistent of a paradigm shift

from more traditional approaches to human interaction and to conflict transformation that see the par-

ties primarily as separately designated entities whose interests are to be satisfied, to a relational mindset

that holds a different perception of human interbeing and from which different approaches for conflict

transformation derive. Prominent scholars have been advocating for over two decades for relational

approaches to conflict resolution (e.g., Bush & Folger, 1994, 2005; Winslade & Monk, 2000, 2008), but

the relational underpinnings presented in this article are somewhat different, offering a dialogic model of

relational interaction and doing so while constructing a relational, dialogic understanding of shared soci-

ety and intervention strategies consistent with the theoretical underpinnings designed to help construct a

shared society through the cultivation of a relational, dialogic mindset.

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198

© 2017 International Association for Conflict Management and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 179

Various typologies exist in Israeli scholarship regarding shared society, as will be presented below.

However, the theoretical foundations of this concept are yet to be explored for a better understand-

ing of the paradigm shift that is called for with the transition from co-existence to shared society.

This article will present such theoretical foundations, alongside a case study where efforts to develop

practices consistent with these foundations are taking place. The underlying assumption of this article

is that such theoretical clarity is important to underpin efforts and further development of practices

toward shared society.

Historically, the discourse on Jewish–Arab relations in Israel was focused on coexistence and practices were directed toward coexistence efforts, aiming at helping Jews and Arabs find more amicable ways to

live side by side in Israel (Kahanoff, 2010, 2016). “Coexistence” was a term used mainly by Jews who were

striving to engage in a dialog with the Arabs, to familiarize the Jewish communities with the culture and

traditions of neighboring Arab communities, and reduce stereotypes and animosity between the two

groups. The idea was close in spirit to the American notion of “separate but equal” and was founded on

the principles of Contact Theory, which claimed that it is possible to reduce intergroup tension by setting

the terms for positive contact between the groups’ members. By creating an equal-status environment

that works on relationships that involve closeness and intimacy, participants come together and reduce

their animosity (Amir, 1969, 1976; Pettigrew, 1998).

In the 1990s such coexistence efforts based on contact theory started to be criticized by thinkers who

claimed that there was a need to raise and confront questions of structural inequality and rejected the

wish to avoid tough political issues and the weakening of separate groups’ identities (Abu-Nimer, 1999,

2001, 2004; Halabi, 2000). Contact theory-based encounters were perceived by these critics as a form of

manipulation, whose aim was to maintain the power structure with no critical reflection or willingness

to reconsider majority–minority power relations and inequality. This manipulation was perceived as the false consciousness of the Jewish left that refused to see the inherent repression that existed in Israeli soci-

ety toward its Arab citizens.

That repression and structural inequality gave rise to new terminology, and to new intergroup

facilitation models, which stressed that before aspiring for “coexistence,” the focus should be on the

Arab minority’s “existence,” on better life conditions and civil rights. For example, in the late 1990s

and early 2000s, the confrontation-model became popular. According to this model for bringing

Arabs and Jews together, the intergroup dynamics in the encounters represent the relations between

the two groups in the unequal and unfair Israeli social realm, and the encounter portrays a meeting

between two identities that are entangled in power relations with unequal status and unequal access

to resources (Halabi, 2000). Participants are empowered to express their in-group identities, and the

tensions or confrontation that arise in the encounters between Jews and Arabs are used to help par-

ticipants understand the social dynamics in order to develop a critical stance toward them. Structural

inequalities are brought to participants’ attention, and the political sphere remains in the focus of

the conversations, rather than putting effort into setting the terms for the intimate, interpersonal

level exchange. In this model, participants’ socially constructed national identities are reinforced, and

the conflict between these well-defined identities is the center of attention. This empowers Arabs to

voice their identity and encourages Jews to reflect on the social inequality or violence in which they

take part.

At present in Israel, there exist diverse definitions of the goals of encounters; the continuum ranges

from confrontation between collective, given social–political identities that emphasize separateness, to relationship-based processes that emphasize common human ground and strive toward coexistence

(Kahanoff, 2016). However, as part of the rebellion against contact theory-based engagements, and

rooted in a critique of both the contact based and the confrontation models, a new synthesis has become

more popular in recent years, advocating for the notions of “shared citizenship” and “shared living.”

These concepts hold both a response to processes of exclusion and alienation of Arabs from the public

sphere, to which contact theory-based interactions gave limited attention, and a wish to engage in a

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198180

From Co-existence to Shared Society Kuttner

dialog based on collective efforts to come together and find modus vivendi in the Israeli society. These

new types of efforts have come with the intention of developing a civil definition of Israeli citizenship,

rather than ethnic or religious definitions. For example, in an important report following the tragic

events of the killing of 13 Arab–Israeli citizens by Israeli police in a large demonstration in the Galilee in 2000, a committee made recommendations for the education system, focused on education for shared

living, while defining partnership as follows1 : “The concept of partnership holds few complementary

meanings: equality among the partners, mutual respect and legitimacy, recognition in the right to exist,

nationally and culturally, of each side, positive and fair relations through empathic and sensitive dialog.

A sense of mutual responsibility and shared quest for peace.” (Salomon & Issawi, 2009, p. 5). This per-

spective addresses the social exclusion of Arabs differently than the Confrontation model or the Contact

Theory model. The shift from coexistence to shared citizenship/living manifests a shift from a separatist

or distinctive to integrative conception of citizenship, with the quest to avoid the naivet�e of contact that

does not strive for structural change, and a vision of foundational change in the power relations between

the Jewish majority and Arab minority.

The shared-society perspective, as mentioned, is gradually taking hold, and it is becoming increasingly

popular. In the coming pages, I will claim that the change in perception incorporates a more paradigm-

oriented shift regarding partnership and the sharing of life in Israel, and that, in order to cultivate the

mindset and practices of shared society, there is a need to realize this paradigm shift. Without a clear

vision of its philosophical underpinnings, it will be difficult for the promise embedded in the concept of

shared society to take hold.

The Relational Paradigm and the Dialogic Foundations of Shared Society

Philosophical Foundations

There is a growing tendency in recent decades toward questioning the notion of the “self” as viewed

within a 25-century tradition of Western philosophy. The Aristotelian framework, the foundation of

Western thought and logic, is a philosophical system based on the category of the “substance,” seeing

each object as having an inner core—an ontological entity that expresses its essential characteristics. Knowing an object’s essence, according to Aristotelian thought, entails exposing its self-identity, and its

unchanging, inherent, and essential characteristics. These characteristics are not affected by, and are thus

independent of, outside variables such as the characteristics of other objects. Knowing the object, accord-

ing to the common Western view, means knowing what these independent, untouched, and unchanged

essential characteristics are.

From this perspective derives an understanding of the human self in individualistic terms, that is—as striving to cement one’s independence through familiarization with one’s inner, independent, and un-

affected core. Emanuel Kant, for example, opens his famous article “An Answer to the Question: What is

Enlightenment” with the following definition: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his own self-

incurred immaturity. Immaturity is one’s inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance

of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolu-

tion and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore:

Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding” (Kant, 1794). This is a view of human nat- ure that emphasizes separateness, autonomy, individuality, and self-interestedness. Twentieth century

thought is characterized by an ongoing tendency to question these underpinnings, offering alternative

understandings of the self, of entities situated and defined in separation and in distinctness from their set

or relations and the contexts in which they perform.

1It is important to note that “shared” and “partnership” are of a similar verb in Hebrew.

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198 181

Kuttner From Co-existence to Shared Society

This tendency is found in twentieth century thought at large, which involves ontological

questioning of Aristotelian metaphysics and Cartesian philosophy regarding the human agent, the

subject, or the self.2 Critically summing the social effect of individualistic worldviews and values

on the American society as they see it, Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton (1996) claim

that

In times of economic prosperity. . . Americans have imagined individualism as a self-sufficient moral and

political guide. In times of social adversity such as the present, they are tempted to say that it is up to indi-

viduals to look after their own interests. Yet many of us have felt, in times both of prosperity and of adver-

sity, that there is something missing in the individualistic set of values, that individualism alone does not

allow persons to understand certain basic realities of their lives, especially their interdependence with others.

These realities become more salient as individual effort alone proves inadequate to meet the demands of

living. (p. ix)

The tendency to question and seek alternatives to the Aristotelian metaphysics and individualistic

perspective also infiltrates the theory and practice of dispute resolution and peacebuilding, as will

be described shortly, and offers models for conflict transformation that should be noted by conflict

specialists.

Relational Relatedness

The relational view of the self contains a shift of focus outwards from the individual to the domain of

relatedness: The self is perceived as an emergent, ever-changing, product of one’s interaction, constructed

within interactions, while its values and vision are an ongoing construction in the emergent flow of inter-

actions (rather than set values and perceptions one imposes on the world). Our realities are shaped

through our experiences and interactions with others. Social constructionism questions the taken-for-

granted assumption that the individual person, the individual action, or the individual “thought” is the

obvious unit of analysis for those wanting to understand the social world, emphasizing instead patterns

of interactions, and relational processes out of which we construct our individuality. Gergen (2009)

argues against the dominant way of thinking in the Western world, which is based on a conception of

man as a bound being. Relationships are no longer perceived as a phenomenon which may occur tem-

porarily when two autonomous individuals converge; rather, relationship precedes the concept of the

self, as from it and within it the self emerges: “. . .all intelligible action is born, sustained, and/or extin-

guished within the ongoing process of relationship. From this standpoint there is no isolated self or fully

private experience. Rather we exist in a world of co-constitution. We are always already emerging from

relationship” (Gergen, 2009, p. xv).

Social constructionists aim to remove meaning from the head of the individual and locate it within

the ways in which people “go on together” or interact (Gergen, 1999). Social understanding, he explains,

is not a matter of penetrating the privacy of the other’s subjectivity, but rather a relational achievement

that depends on coordinating action. There is a need to coordinate meaning, realizing that meaning

emerges only through and within relatedness, through interacting. Meaning is not the possession of indi-

viduals, of separate persons, but rather “an emergent property of coordinated action” (Gergen, 1999, p.

145). There is a need to shift from talking and thinking about the world to what Shotter calls withness

thinking, being aware of meaning as it unfolds, and affecting the flow of processes from within our living

involvement with them (Shotter, 2006).

2Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Foucault, and Deride are prominent thinkers who suggested criticism on common under-

standings of the self. Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, and Post-Structuralism are central schools in the creation of the intellec-

tual shift, each of them with its unique criticism of the governing western underpinnings and common concept of “self.”

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198182

From Co-existence to Shared Society Kuttner

Relationality in Conflict Resolution Scholarship

The questioning of the self as a separate, independent, and fixed entity can be found also in current Alter-

native Dispute Resolution (ADR) literature. The Transformative Approach to mediation was the first to

challenge the governing paradigm to understanding the human self and the goals of the mediation pro-

cess in the name of a relational alternative. Bush and Folger (1994, 2005) claimed that the mediator’s

vision for the process should not be the satisfactions of separately defined individuals’ and group’s inter-

ests and needs, but rather the transformation of parties’ conflict interaction through experiencing both

their separateness (empowerment of self) and their connectedness (recognition of others). According to

the relational worldview offered by Bush and Folger (1994), individuals are “seen as both separate and

connected, both individuated and similar. . . to some degree autonomous, self-aware, and self-interested

but also to some degree connected, sensitive, and responsive to others” (p. 242). Awareness of agency

and connection is the essence of human consciousness, the core of our identity as human beings, they

claim; conflict, “alienates [the parties] from their sense of their own strength and their sense of connec-

tion to others, thereby disrupting and undermining the interaction between them as human beings,”

(Bush & Folger, 2005, p. 46), and the parties’ abilities to exercise their relational nature involves experi-

encing both separateness and connectedness, strength of self, and responsiveness to others.

The narrative approach to mediation, as presented by Cobb (1994) and by Winslade and Monk (2000,

2008), offers a framework that also challenges foundational assumptions that underlie Western philoso-

phy and challenges both mediators and parties to cultivate a less common view of the Self. Winslade and

Monk (2000) also emphasize the fact that the manner in which the self is understood has a foundational

effect on how mediators understand the mediation process, and on their actions in practice. Following

postmodern philosophy, they criticize the idea of the self as possessing a separate, permanent inner core;

instead, emphasizing that a shift is required from the parties’ firm, fixed, and well-constructed view to a

vision of the self as constructed within social and discursive patterns. Criticizing the more traditional,

individualistically oriented models of negotiation and conflict-interaction, Winslade and Monk (2000)

assert that “Problem-solving and interest-based approaches emphasize the individual as an independent,

stable, unitary, self-motivating, and self-regulating identity. . .[while] through the postmodern lens, iden-

tity is not fixed, nor is it carried around by the individual largely unchanged from one context to

another” (pp. 44–45). The narrative approach proposes that people live their lives according to stories rather than according to inner drives or interests, stories that are relationally formed within the social

discourse in which they partake. People establish coherence for themselves through their constructed sto-

ries, and during conflict, these stories hold much divisiveness (“us/them,” “good/bad”) and create “vic-

tims” and “victimizers.” In order to transform conflict interaction, according to the narrative approach,

the conflict stories need to be deconstructed or destabilized so that an alternative, joint story can be con-

structed.

Both the transformative approach and the narrative approach offer a vision of transformation different

from the foundations of relationality offered in this article. While the transformative approach empowers

participants’ sense of agency and the strengthening of self, this sense of empowerment is not consistent

with the effort to perceive the co-construction of identity through human interaction. The transforma-

tive approach is not designed to cultivate relational awareness as described in this article.3 Also, the nar-

rative approach, with its view of the social identity as a construct with which people enter their

encounter, offers a focus on people’s interaction which is different from the emphasis on the joint mean-

ing-making in situ, through dialog, that the dialog-oriented relational approach discussed here empha-

sizes.

3 For more on the limitations of the transformative approach with regard to the development of relational perception of the self,

see Seul (1999) and Kuttner (2006).

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198 183

Kuttner From Co-existence to Shared Society

Dialog as a Relational Practice

It is important to note at this point that the notion of dialog is relational, and that dialogic interaction is

consistent with the relational underpinnings needed for the cultivation of a shared society. Prominent

dialog scholars across a number of intellectual disciplines present the concept of dialog as a relational

practice and provide the dialogic experience an interpretation consistent with the ontological questioning

of the self as a separately held entity.

Martin Buber, for example, offers an alternative to the more consensual western perspective that sees

the individuals as separate, independent entities that engage each other. While according to Kantian phi-

losophy, a thing can be known in itself only when separated from its relations, Buberian metaphysics

argues the opposite, having at its starting point the idea that only the relation grants the things their

independent existence and that only in dialog this idea is realized. He suggests that in dialog this interde-

pendency is realized.

Buber makes a radical claim that in dialog the relation as a primary and foundational experience is

echoed—one in which the nature of humans and of the world is understood. He draws a distinction between two modes of conversations—indeed, between two different qualities of human interaction: “I-Thou” and “I-It,” the former manifesting dialogic relations. While the I-It relation is characterized

seeing the “it” as bounded by others, as an object perceived with cold indifference, the I-Thou is a dia-

logic relation, acknowledging that “Through the ‘Thou’ a man becomes ‘I’” (Buber, 1923, p. 28), mean-

ing that only in the presence of the I-Thou primary relation can the self be wholly apprehended. In

dialog, people understand that only within the scope of that relation does the “I” become a person in its

full sense, thus fulfilling his humanness.

The realm of the “Thou” overcomes the disconnection embedded in the relation with an object and

includes a different focus.4 This mindset is also the mindset that characterizes the dynamics of shared

society. What is essential for Buber is not what goes on within the minds of the partners in a relationship

but what happens between them. He is unalterably opposed to the wish to focus on the separate psyches

of the participants (Buber, 2002).

Similar to Buber’s view, David Bohm presents a view of dialog different from the more common percep-

tion of interaction as an exchange between opinionated, bounded people. According to Bohm (1996), the

etymology of dialog is “a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us” (p. 6). Bohm

draws a distinction between the dialogic state and the state of trading information among human beings,

where each person guards the foundational assumptions with which one arrives: “They are more like dis-

cussions—or perhaps trade-offs or negotiations—than dialogs. The people who take part are not really open to questioning their fundamental assumptions. They are trading off minor points. . . but the whole

question of two different systems is not being seriously discussed. You can’t talk about that—nothing will ever change that” (Bohm, 1996, p. 7). The state of trading information is akin to the interest-based negoti-

ation model, where bounded individuals share their interests and exchange ideas on how to create value,

and of interaction that coexistence efforts can suffice with but that shared society efforts wish to transform.

The interest-based approach to conflict resolution takes, at its starting point, the autonomous, indepen-

dent self and focuses attention on each agent’s interests in separation. The interest-based approach follows

a tradition that posits the “other” as an outer-bounded self with whom one interacts by situating oneself in

separation from, understanding human dynamics as separately situated individuals who interact by

exchanging ideas. This view is the basis of the common understanding of conversation and negotiation.

An interest-based approach to negotiation encourages going beyond one’s positions to explore one’s

interests and needs; one of its foundations is the assumption that by exploring interests and concerns

4“The relating I and the addressed Thou, which reveals itself, may meet and this mutual ‘relation’ (Bezeinhung) is ‘encounter’

(Begegnung). Buber highlights that in the sphere of the ‘between’ (zwischen) as the humanizing factor in human society, institu-

tions are too much ‘outside’, whereas feelings are too much ‘inside’” (Meir, 2006, 121).

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198184

From Co-existence to Shared Society Kuttner

each side can develop better understanding of their own, as well as their counterpart’s, point of view

(Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991; Moore, 1986; Susskind & Field, 1996). Another foundational assumption is

that through the creation of an exchange, in which parties try to meet as many interests and concerns of

all sides, they will be able to find mutually agreed upon solutions (Lewicki, Saunders, & Minton, 1985)

and create value (Mnookin, Peppet, & Tulumello, 2000). However, even when negotiation manuals claim

to adopt relational emphases, Greenhalgh and Lewicki (2003) stress the teaching of negotiation, “was a

convenient simplification, because considering ‘the party’ as a single generic actor allowed scholars to

apply all of their individualistically oriented theory to the intra-group, inter-group, intra-organizational,

and international levels (p. 27).”

As opposed to the trading information or negotiation state, the dialogic state, according to Bohm, calls

for a different epistemology: Dialog requires talking about and changing that, that is, a re-examination of

the assumptions and perceptions with which the participants arrive. A re-examination that undermines

foundational assumptions—not only regarding content—but also regarding the perception of the parties as “two different systems.” In advanced phases of shared society efforts, such re-examination ought to

take place.

While presenting his dialogic view of human understanding and thinking, Charles Taylor (1991) draws

a distinction between “monologic acts” (single-agent acts) and “dialogic acts”; the latter not emerging, he

explains, from the common epistemological tradition. Within a “monologic act,” one fails to capture that

“the self neither preexists all conversation, as in the old monological view; nor does it arise from an intro-

jection of the interlocutor; but it arises within conversation, because this kind of dialogical action by its

very nature marks a place for the new locator who is being inducted into it” (p. 312). Once again, the dia-

logic state is emphasized as questioning the more common, Aristotelian, sense of self, and this kind of

questioning on the societal level, among social groups, is needed for the cultivation of shared society.

Taylor articulates what can be seen as a relational vision for transforming adversity and social frag-

mentation into dialog: A vision of shifting from an introjected “I,” which has to find its own voice, to

gradual awareness of the process of how it arises within conversation, a process of “gradually finding

one’s own voice as an interlocutor” (Taylor, 1991, p. 313).5 This—by definition—cannot be an inquiry made by individuals as it is a shared social process that will provide new meaning to the notion of shared

society, and to the strategies and skills needed for its gradual cultivation. This is consistent with Taylor’s

earlier, seminal work Source of the Self (1989), in which he described the philosophy and the manner in

which we perceive the world and ourselves:

. . .we naturally come to think that we have selves the way we have heads or arms, and inner depths the way we

have hearts or livers, as a matter of hard, interpretation-free fact. Distinctions of locale, like inside and outside,

seem to be discovered like facts about ourselves, and not to be relative to the particular way, among other possi-

ble ways, we construe ourselves. . . Something in the nature of our experience of ourselves seems to make the

current localization almost irresistible, beyond challenge (p. 122).

The relational, dialog-driven approach to human interaction presented in this article challenges this

almost-natural way of thinking and makes this current localization resistible. This dialog-driven

approach also sets new challenges to theoreticians and practitioners who aim at transforming social frag-

mentation to shared society.

5 These philosophical underpinnings can be found in communication studies, where conversation analysis (CA) studies practice

talk-in-interaction, a research tradition whose underlying philosophical commitments are highly resonant with a dialogic per-

spective and the relational premises, viewing all communicative behaviors as social action that makes meaning rather than a

medium for the transmission of information. Similar to Buber’s perspective and following a Wittgensteinian central premise,

CA study focuses on how people interact rather than on what’s going in their mind. For more on how ethnomethodological

conversation analysis (CA) is explicating practices of talk using relational interaction as presented in this article, see Glenn and

Kuttner (2013).

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198 185

Kuttner From Co-existence to Shared Society

These perspectives are merely examples of writings on dialog that offer a relational vision of human

interaction and interbeing.6 They lead to a different vision for transforming adversity and polarization

into dialog and the cultivation of new awareness of the shared space, which is different from both the

more common interest-based approach and also from the focus of the transformative and narrative

approaches: A vision of shifting from an introjected “I,” who has to find his own voice, to gradual aware-

ness of the process that takes place in the shared space, from which and within which the sense of self

rises and can be found. This vision of relationality and dialog takes as its starting point the joint action

taking place in concrete situations, the co-construction in the dialogic space in situ from which the pri-

vate agents relationally emerge, rather than focusing on individuals’ acts and identities separately from

that emergence, or co-constructed reality.

With these theoretical emphases in mind, the notion of shared society as a relational space can be dis-

cussed, and the paradigm shift from coexistence to shared society clarified.

A Relational, Dialog-Driven, Approach to Shared Society

In light of the above clarification of the notion of dialog as a relational mindset and practice, it is under-

standable that peacebuilding and conflict transformation efforts that aim at cultivating dialog ought to

help groups and individuals transform the mindset that refrains from entering a practice of co-construct-

ing the realty in which one, by definition, coexists rather than exists. This is a practice that aims at help-

ing cultivate awareness of the shared space in which parties—whether individuals or groups who fortify their inner fixed, coherent and consistent group identity—are supported in an effort to open up to a more inclusive, systemic approach. An approach in which the gestalt of the group’s reality (its joint

region, its country, perhaps its mixed city) is engaged in a dialogic process of co-construction of its char-

acteristics, together rather than in separation. In other words, it requires the gradual cultivation of a

mindset of a shared society different from an approach that aims at identifying and satisfying the needs

and interests of each party or group, as is the focus of the interest-based approach to negotiation and

conflict resolution. A Relational, Dialog-Driven, Approach to Shared Society requires a mindset in which

the seemingly separated groups partake in an ongoing process of co-construction of their shared reality,

while building the capacity to do so jointly and while being reflective of this process, thus developing

awareness of the relational means by which they continuously define the shared space, as partners.

Following the description of the relational underpinnings, this section aims at analyzing the shift from

coexistence to shared society as consistent with the zeitgeist, influenced by the spirit of the times and

manifesting a discontent from the results of coexistence efforts. The notion of coexistence has as its start-

ing point the desired respect for each side’s existence in separation, defining itself in itself and for itself,

thus making an effort to have its own secured sense of identity, ethos or narrative. Living side-by-side,

with each having gained that appreciated sense of unified identity, is at the peak of an individualistically

based perspective of intergroup peacebuilding and conflict transformation. Coexistence has at its starting

point the belief that each group has the right and capability to define its being in solitude and in separa-

tion from “the other” (“the other” being a separately defined group that at best is independent to define

its character and social environment). The disappointment from this vision, I suggest, is the realization

that this is a thin, unsatisfactory vision of social cohesion, as it perpetuates fragmentation and provides

legitimacy to a retreat from an effort to work on the shared identity. Instead, with shared society, the aim

is at a vision in which groups and individuals partake in an ongoing dialogic process of co-constructing

their joint reality, joint future, and even their joint identity.

Shared society, I suggest, offers a paradigm shift and lays out a challenge to conflict specialists and

peacebuilders that should not be overlooked: In order to help groups, individuals and even nations

6For further reading on dialog as a relational practice, see Kuttner (2012).

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198186

From Co-existence to Shared Society Kuttner

(for example in the EU construct) develop a sense of shared society, there is a need to cultivate a rela-

tional mindset, and to develop the capacity to let go of the firmly held sense of separately defined identi-

ties, cultivating a more complex sense of interdependence instead. Following this rationale, a shared

space is to be seen as a space in which parties share equal responsibility for its well-being, with a systemic

approach that sees the whole prior to drawing a dividing line and entrenching in secured, self-sustaining

images of freedom and independence. This removes the sense of only partial responsibility to the well-

being of the bounded sense of a group’s territory; it involves the co-creation of the social conditions that

serve all of its members, with the awareness that one is void of the luxury to develop one’s well-being

separately from, and while in ignorance of, the well-being of the alleged “other,” the seemingly separately

designated group for which one has no responsibility (McNamee & Gergen, 1998). A relational mindset

and a mindset of shared society embeds, I suggest, the recognition in interdependence rather than depen-

dence; it involves awareness of how images of the other are formed in relation to one’s images of self,

and how one’s identity or sense of self are formed always in relation to one’s images of otherness. I sug-

gest that a relational mindset and apprehension of shared society involves joint and ongoing learning

processes with awareness of the ongoing interdependent co-construction of both “self” and “other”

in situ. This view of relational dynamics requires a different sense of listening and attentiveness: Being

aware of the means by which one filters the other and brings assumptions, constructs, of who the other

is, which stand in the way of relating and evolving in mutuality.

Relational understanding of shared society brings new and thorough understanding of the notions of

inclusivity and social cohesion. This understanding requires the cultivating of relational awareness,

awareness of the ongoing co-arising and co-evolution of the sense of self and of one’s feelings and

thoughts in the present moment in relation to the occurrences in the shared space. This cultivation

necessitates the capacity to bring vulnerability, humility, and even insecurity (in the sense of overly

secured, bounded sense of self) to the shared, interdependent space; it requires sincere willingness to

explore and reveal a complex situation with fresh eyes, and interest in re-viewing the circumstances

in situ. Relational awareness, I suggest, is manifested in qualities such as co-construction, co-evolution,

joint action, joint meaning making, coordinated meaning, adaptive change and emerging proposition,

thus transforming the individualistic mindset.

Toward a Relational Definition of Shared Society

Shared society is a term that has been developed extensively in recent years. For example, the Club De

Madrid, the world’s largest, independent group of democratic political leaders,7 has developed a vision

and goal of constructing shared societies worldwide, “based on the promotion and protection of all

human rights, as well as on nondiscrimination, tolerance, respect for diversity, equality of opportunity,

solidarity, security and participation of all people including disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and

persons” (Club de Madrid, 2006, p. 6). Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May, for example, speaks of a

vision of a shared society in terms of “working for everyone,” and “tackling some of the burning injus-

tices that undermine the solidarity of our society” (May, 2007). However, theoretical foundations of the

concept of shared society are missing from these descriptions, which may as well refer to providing equal

opportunities, sharing resources, taking care for each group and its needs and interests; as important as

it is, this does not necessitate the paradigm shift toward dialog and a relational vision of a shared society

as outlined above. With a clear understanding of the relational mindset that underlies the notion of

human shared living, it becomes easier to develop strategies and practices to help, among other things, to

cultivate the values described by the Club de Madrid, but also to go beyond that in order to overcome

social fragmentation and alienation. As the work of Givat Haviva demonstrates in the coming section, it

7www.clubmadrid.org.

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198 187

Kuttner From Co-existence to Shared Society

is possible to take a step forward in implementing relational underpinnings in order to help transform

separate living into a vision of shared society.

Building a Shared Society in Israel: Givat Haviva’s Case

In this section, I use Givat Haviva as a case study and present various programs that have been developed

in recent years at Givat Haviva to illustrate how the relational premises can be implemented in the devel-

opment of intervention programs. I will also demonstrate how they are exercised in practice, in efforts to

build new foundations for a shared society in Israel.

Givat Haviva: Background

Givat Haviva is a nonprofit organization founded in 1949 as the national education center of the Kibbutz

Federation in Israel. As a foundation for building a shared future and shared society, it is dedicated to

promoting mutual responsibility, civic equality, and cooperation between divided groups in Israel—criti- cal elements of a sustainable and thriving Israeli democracy. To this end, the Center for a Shared Society

at Givat Haviva serves as a catalyst in activating divided communities to work together toward achieving

their common goals, while engaging in a process of interaction, support, and empowerment. This is done

through facilitating cross-community projects; leading training and capacity building activities; conven-

ing seminars, workshops, and conferences to cultivate concrete ideas that foster change; and translating

these ideas into action. A leader in its field in Israel, Givat Haviva, is a recipient of the UNESCO Prize for

Peace Education for its longstanding work in promoting Jewish–Arab dialog and reconciliation.8

The Center for Shared Society at Givat Haviva “aims to build an inclusive, socially cohesive society in

Israel by engaging divided communities in collective action toward the advancement of a sustainable,

thriving Israeli democracy based on mutual responsibility, civic equality and a shared vision of the

future.”9 From a relational point of view, the main emphases in this vision are collective action, mutual

responsibility, and shared vision: They set a profound challenge aiming at building capacity to work

together—not only for the execution of separately defined goals or interests—but for engaging in a dia- log on core, foundational constructs of identity, and sense of self. A construct of shared living is aimed

for through an ongoing process of collective, joint action, while sharing the responsibility, for the com-

mon good and sense of well-being of everyone. Instead of each side looking out for oneself and for its

interests, or even each side looking for the well-being of the “other,” Jews and Arabs are jointly con-

structing the idea of the good (as an ongoing, everlasting, joint process), and making an ongoing joint

effort to fulfill and materialize it in practice.

“Our Region”: A Relationally Oriented Educational Program

A good opening example of Givat Haviva’s relationally oriented shared-society programs is its new edu-

cation program, titled “Mentikatna” (Maayan & Atamni, 2015), which is the Arabic word for “our

region.” By developing regional thinking and the mindset of a shared region, “the program aspires to fos-

ter, within these communities, a common affinity to the region, in order to create an alternative climate/

environment of equality and solidarity” (Maayan & Atamni, 2015, p. I).

The program aims at training teachers to teach their pupils about their mixed region, to help them

become familiar with the complex human, geographical, and cultural landscape of the Wadi A’ra area

that consists of Jewish and Arab populations. Through the cultivation of regional thinking that sees the

8 http://www.givathaviva.org/index.php?dir=site&page=content&cs=3000. 9See Givat Haviva’s Center for Shared Society, at www.givathaviva.org.

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198188

From Co-existence to Shared Society Kuttner

region as a “shared yard,” and while engaging in questions of active citizenship—encouraging them to be active participants in shaping their environment—the program aspires for teachers and pupils to collec- tively take action and affect processes in the region. Participants learn to develop a shared sentiment of

belonging, to construct a regional identity, and to be active citizens together. With this powerful shared

identity, they learn to deal with tough questions of inequality, of strong and weak populations, and of

access to resources, while taking part in joint civil projects that involve tapping regional resources, thus

building a more just and equal tomorrow in the region. Joint regional thinking allows the pupils to

explore and understand a complex, multicultural environment that is grasped as manageable rather than

alienating: While focusing on the state as a whole is too wide for developing active citizenship that affects

change, and while concentrating on the town or village is too narrow, and does not allow an entry to the

multicultural landscape, regional thinking explored jointly by Jewish and Arab educators and later

pupils, allows shared concern for environmental issues that pupils can contain and be empowered to

address. Thus, they are experiencing their ability to affect change. Regional environmental issues become

the shared concern of pupils, and the students share an interest to take action and improve their liveli-

hood. Within the scope of this constructed regional identity, and with the joint excitement of active citi-

zenship, it is then easier to surface, manage, and even resolve tough issues regarding Jewish–Arab inequality and power imbalances—while doing so dialogically without withdrawal to separate spaces and fragmentations where Jewish and Arab identities are in confrontation.

Theprogramputstheemphasisinitsfinalphaseontheconstructionofsharedpublicspace:Throughexpe-

riential learning, the shared active citizenship materializes to joint, Jewish–Arab action to improve the liveli- hoodintheregionbyengaginginaprojectthatstrengthensthesenseofsharedpublicspaceintheregion.

In an evaluation (Avrahami-Marom, 2017a), both qualitative and quantitative, performed after a joint

Jewish–Arab training program for geography teachers from neighboring municipalities, which focused on regional geography and social and ecological issues, while acquiring skills for joint Jewish–Arab learn- ing on these regional issues—participants in the program reported high increase in their sense of shared region, and with their capability to help students cultivate a similar mindset and acquire similar skills.

An evaluation tool that measures changes in the sense of joint region was developed, evaluating the par-

ticipants’ attitudes before and after the course with respect to (a) emotional bond to the region, which

includes their sense of belonging and the extent to which the joint region is part of their identity, subse-

quently affected by occurrences within it; (b) knowledge of the region and its residents (with emphasis

on the population from the other population); (c) access to regional resources, which includes one’s per-

ception of every group’s accessibility, and their perception of the level of involvement each group has

and should have in regional planning processes; (d) and capability and opportunity to partake in joint

processes to affect the region, which captures the extent to which one believes they have the tools to

influence regional processes (e.g., decisions regarding an expansion of a village or decisions regarding

nature trails, or development of new sports facilities, etc.).

An increase, at times a high increase, was measured on all of these variables after the training program.

Teachers demonstrated in their reports a very high increase in the level of conviction that such a program

can lead to substantial changes in how pupils perceive their joint region, and also that the program will

lead to an increased sense of belonging, familiarity with the mosaic of populations that construct the

region, accessibility to resources, belief in their ability to affect the region and bring change on issues that

matter, and belief that they have the tools to do so while collaborating and developing a sense of partner-

ship with their neighboring communities of all populations.10 These reports by the teachers manifest a

10 Following the training program, “Mentikatna” was implemented among these teachers’ pupils, with pupils from both munici-

palities studying together. After getting to know each other, and a preliminary introduction to the different cultures, pupils con-

tinued working in a small group format (groups of four: two Jews and two Arabs) mapping and photographing places in the

region they liked, and working on a joint product that markets the region by reporting on its richness and diversity while

emphasizing its uniqueness.

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198 189

Kuttner From Co-existence to Shared Society

change they have already been experiencing themselves in their capability, not only to collaborate, but

also in their ability to co-construct their reality and to develop an increased sense of partnership and

shared responsibility with regard to their social realm.

Shared Communities: A Relational Model for Advancing Toward a Shared Society

Givat Haviva’s flagship program Shared Communities is another example of a relationally oriented

shared society program. The Shared Communities Program is a 4-year intervention program that builds

structured, mutually beneficial cooperation between pairs of neighboring Jewish and Arab communities

that are divided by the increasing tensions and mutual alienation that threaten the democratic fabric of

Israel today. This initiative is based on the belief that shared communities are the building blocks of the

national project of creating a shared society.

The intervention model in this program is based on a three-level typology developed at Givat Haviva

which helps draw a 4-year path in which Givat Haviva serves as the integrator and facilitator of various

joint initiatives among the communities, aiming at cultivating a spirit of partnership amongst them. Var-

ious typologies exist in Israeli scholarship regarding shared living or the practice of shared society build-

ing: Shatil, for example, has a four-level typology, the most advanced titled “strategic partnership” or

“core partnership” (Roval-Lipshitz, 2006). Sikkuy draw in their working model a distinction between

“collaboration” and the more advanced stage of “partnerships” (Sabag et al., 2014). Yet none of these

typologies delve into the theoretical foundations, or offer a relational model as presented here. Givat

Haviva’s typology consists of the following: “participation”, “collaboration,” and “partnership”:

Participat Collaborationion Partnership

The three levels—participation, collaboration, and partnership—demonstrate three developmental stages from a relational point of view. It will be impossible in the scope of this article to describe all the

variables and characteristics of the three levels and to provide an in-depth analysis of the differences

between them from a relational perspective. However, it is important to note that the transition toward

partnership expresses the overcoming of a mindset that is nonrelational or characterized by individualis-

tic manifestations.

The Early Stages

Givat Haviva’s definition of participation is as follows: Participation in a partnership that another is lead-

ing, with the joint work being random, periodical, and limited in time for the resolution of ad hoc prob-

lems. Participants arrive at agreements on a predetermined set of goals with the help of agreed-upon

forums in which partial sharing of knowledge, information, and resources is taking place. Forums are

designed to get a better perspective on a problem and its possible resolution, and for the construction of

a social sphere that leads to better relationships and which entails regathering when needed. From a rela-

tional point of view, this stage demonstrates a predetermined and separately formulated sense of each of

the groups, bringing to the shared space and maintaining a well secured sense of what the problems to

tackle are and of their interests and priorities. Satisfaction of well-defined interests is the focus and joint

exploration or co-evolution is not the emphasis.

Collaboration is defined as follows: Participants, or rather collaborators, lead together a joint project

or a number of initiatives simultaneously, while identifying and satisfying separately defined interests,

joint interests, and priorities. The decisions on the work plan and the projects’ goals and characteristics

are taken together, while pushing the limits of their respective organizations and creating a more mean-

ingful sense of dependency for the satisfaction of interests. The joint dependency leads to the

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198190

From Co-existence to Shared Society Kuttner

strengthening of ties and the formation of a platform for ongoing collaboration, with partial interest and

capacity in developing new joint initiatives, joint learning, and a change in practices and perspectives.

From a relational point of view, there is progression toward joint decision making and reflecting on one’s

boundaries: Thus giving room for dependency, yet still for the satisfaction of their separately defined

interests. There is also progression toward joint learning, a step toward co-evolution and joint meaning

making.

In the entry phase to a new partnership, part of the diagnosis made by Givat Haviva through its pre-

liminary assessment includes identifying the participants’ stage of engagement, and their ripeness to

engage in more advanced levels of engagement (for further discussion on ripeness, see Zartman, 2001;

Schiff, 2014). Sincere empathy and respect for where they are situated on this continuum should be

demonstrated.11

Givat Haviva’s intervention model starts with identifying and mapping interests defined separately,

entering a process in which each side brings to the table its interests. Acknowledgment of these needs

and interests, and work toward their satisfaction, is paramount in order to build trust and conviction in

the added values of the partnership, and much of Givat Haviva’s effort in the early stage is to do just that.

Beyond joint interests, which is also a foundational premise in the interest-based approach—participants develop the capacity to construct new shared interests; interests of the partnership as a partnership, an

entity that stands on its own, that needs to be maintained and sustained, a system in which, and through

which, each one’s interests are defined and redefined anew.

Indeed, in this stage, the work with the participants has a lot in common with coexistence projects.

However, as joint teams work together toward affecting their reality, a spirit of collective action is gradu-

ally being developed, thus going beyond the old models of coexistence encounters. The program in its

early stages has many characteristics in common also with contact theory models: People coming

together and practicing working together around their separately identified interests, their jointly framed

shared interests, and their common goals. The aim is to transit from in-group interests to joint interests,

and later to a shared vision of the common space. However, the model does not lean only on contact pre-

mises; it strives for preparing participants for structural change and shifts in mindset, thus looking to a

more relationally based interaction. In addition, it is a systemic approach from which joint interests are

elicited and co-constructed.

For example, an economic-development committee of a partnership between a Jewish and an Arab

municipality may find its drive and will to participate in the program in its early evolutionary stage

through the calculation of the self-interests of each of the municipalities, that is—“what do we (my municipality) gain from it financially,” or—“how are our economic interests served through any desig- nated program.” In a later, more advanced collaborative stage, the question may be framed differently.

For example—“how is the well-being of all citizens in the region served through the project at hand?” This adopts a more regional view of the common good, regardless of the designation into in-group inter-

ests.

This may lead in a later stage toward a reflective stance and critical analysis of power relations and

structural inequality. However, as Givat Haviva aims for the engagement around political dilemmas and

tough issues to be dialogic rather than confrontational or monologic, it begins merely by setting the stage

for these dialogs—bringing the tough issues to the forefront only in the later stage when they can be con- tained, and the conflicts managed constructively, through dialog and with relational awareness in the

common, shared space.

11 What may at first seem as more advanced level of engagement by Jewish participants, less shielded with regard to their sense of

in-group identity, may be confusing: The alleged openness is targeted for contact-based engagement, in which the privileged

Jewish starting point is taken for granted; however, there will usually be less readiness for critical examination of that exact start-

ing point, or openness for structural changes that may be perceived as a threat to the hegemonies Jewish standpoint.

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198 191

Kuttner From Co-existence to Shared Society

Partnership

Givat Haviva’s definition of partnership is as follows: Profound connection in vision, core goals, and val-

ues; joint construction of a system, or long-term reform, in which all participants contribute to the

change of the system and arrive at agreements regarding the means by which it is possible to change— radically and for the long term—old working patterns; in conjunction with adapting services, resources, institutes, and norms; and while developing new ways for coping with social problems. The partners

develop and enforce upon themselves the tasks in need of addressing to maintain and continuously

develop the partnership while creating joint meaning and joint social capital, and while constructing vital

systems for identifying, surfacing, managing, and resolving conflicts.

The profound connection digs deep to foundational premises and to the sense of being that assists par-

ticipants in this later stage to refrain from withdrawing to a separate, fortified sense of distinct identity in

the flow of interaction. Indeed, there is room for voicing differences and empowering group narratives,

although these arise from and within the interaction, when addressed compassionately in the realm of

the shared space; in which the sharing of vision, core goals, and values serve as the glue and cement, the

holding space, for the dialog on differences. This is no longer merely the meeting space of separately

identified—usually ad hoc—interests, of different agendas in which each party makes optimal use of the meeting to create value for one’s own community, and which are calculated and addressed without a

holistic perspective that takes into account the complexity of the regional considerations at a more sys-

temic level.

The notion of joint construction of a system and long-term reform reinforce the co-construction of

sustainable system; a structure that stands on its own and in which the parts partake, seeing the primacy

of the communal-based institution as the shared space within which participants inter-act. The possibil-

ity of radically changing old patterns is a derivative of the capability to deconstruct mental constructs,

and habitual ways of being that derive from a fixed sense of self and other, co-constructing in mutuality

a new sense of going about together; for example, seeing an environmental challenge as a regional chal-

lenge rather than a challenge a municipality needs to face with its known, well-defined capacity. The abil-

ity to adapt to new realities requires the transformation of one’s habitual grasping of self and other, and

of seemingly given, forced-upon constructs of objective reality. The internal-reinforcement and responsi-

bility are a result of motivation building, a motivation that recognizes and sees as a priority the maintain-

ing and sustaining of the partnership in its profound, dialogic stance (i.e., making meaning together and

sensitively refraining from the withdrawal to separate sense of self that stands in opposition to the other)

and which characterizes poor conflict management. Developing the capacity and skills to manage con-

flicts from a relational standpoint requires the identification and raising of common and naturally occur-

ring withdrawals from the dialogic space to the entrenchment in in-group identities, situated in

opposition rather than dialogically complement to one another. Good, highly capable, conflict manage-

ment systems are aware of the tendency to polarize, dichotomize, and exclude and are capable of trans-

forming this human tendency to relational awareness and inclusive, interdependent, response-able

dialog.

In this more advanced stage, the maintenance and improvement of the partnership becomes the center

of attention, participants discovering its core through it. For example, in the economic-development

committee of a partnership between a Jewish and an Arab municipality described above, partners in this

stage may find the drive—when gradually cultivating the mindset of partnership and with a growing sense of shared ownership and responsibility for the joint region—to enter a dialog where the committee may be focused on ideas such as “Who are we as a partnership?” “What is our shared vision for this region?,”

and even more—“How is our sense of who we are revisited through and within the interaction?,” or “How can our partnership define itself anew through economic-development projects that push our

boundaries, our sense of who we are, and help us thrive?” When asking this more advanced set of ques-

tions, participants are no longer avoiding structural imbalance, restructuring power relations, and revis-

iting inequality. Moreover, while gradually experiencing profound changes in Jewish–Arab dynamics and

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198192

From Co-existence to Shared Society Kuttner

cultivating a relational sense of co-construction of their joint reality, they are now able to raise and man-

age constructively these tough issues that usually are highly challenging to address in Jewish–Arab encounters.

Program Content and Lessons Learned

Givat Haviva’s first established partnership between a pair of communities—the Jewish town of Pardes Hanna-Karkur (population—32,000) and the neighboring Arab village of Kafr Kara (population— 17,000) was in 2010. Since then, four other partnerships have been established, most recently toward the

end of 2016 the fifth, between the Jewish Regional Council of Lev-Hasharon (population—14,000) and the city of Qalansawe (population of 22,000).

In the program, Israeli citizens and local leadership are engaged across divides through the creation

of intercommunity alliances, mechanisms, and frameworks that facilitate joint action around common

values, projects, and goals. The program adopts a holistic, inclusive approach to its activities, whereby

all members of the community are engaged in various circles: Community-based programs that apply

directly to the citizens; educational programs run via the formal school system and informal education;

and at the municipal level, in which mayors and high officials work in ongoing joint committees (e.g.,

environmental committee, arts committee, economic development, planning committee, etc.) on

mutually agreed-upon projects. In each of the circles, the three different stages are identified and

addressed, helping participants become collaborators and partners. Participants are constantly encour-

aged throughout the program, in every circle, to co-construct their shared space and joint reality

together. Yet, in each stage that is translated to different dynamics, with different levels of trust and

rapport; at every stage, their co-construction efforts take into account a vision of shared society and

partnership, although this vision evolves and gains new meaning as the process progresses. For exam-

ple, on the municipal level, the facilitators will design the process and pose challenges to the teams on

the committees in accordance with where they are at, helping in the early stage identify shared interests

and design projects with levels of participation that meet participants’ expectations, and to push their

boundaries and reflect on the entire structure of the committee with the goal of helping cultivate a new

joint perspective in the later stage. Complementary to the intercommunity work in the paired commu-

nities, Givat Haviva also facilitates regional forums by bringing together key Jewish and Arab players

from throughout Wadi A’ra to forge cooperation on a regional level among municipalities, businesses,

and nonprofit organizations.

The rationale behind focusing on the three circles of community, municipality, and education in the

partnerships is the wish to be sensitive to different basic needs and goals for Jewish–Arab relations usu- ally expressed, in general, by these two groups. While Jews in general are more focused on relationship

building and on getting recognition from the Arab communities (recognition for its right to have a Jew-

ish nationality in Israel and thus developing a sense of security and reassurance), the Arab participants’

quest is to see more activities that advance more just allocation of resources, equality, and justice (Halabi,

2000; Kahanoff, 2016). The program is structured in a way that helps address both: While the commu-

nity-based activities are in their basis oriented more toward contact, people-to-people projects that

enhance relationship building and familiarity, the municipal circle is more structured around developing

new shared infrastructures, constructed on basis of equality and mutual accessibility to power and

national resources. The education circle is focused on developing human resources that embrace, from

childhood, the idea of shared living and shared society, as described above, alongside other educational

programs that bring together students and educators in various formats with different developmental

goals in mind.

Experience shows that moving from the level of participation to the level of collaboration requires

time and ongoing positive experiences, and that the shift toward the level of true partnership sets chal-

lenges that can bare sporadic fruits after some time only if targeted with clear intention and determina-

tion. As the program progresses, participants experience glimpses of shared living encounters, alongside

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198 193

Kuttner From Co-existence to Shared Society

frustration from their absence in the short term. Gradually, these experiences may become more frequent

and continuous. For example, in an evaluation that was performed at the end of the first year of the

shared communities program between Megiddo Regional Council and Ma’ale Iron Local Council, both

qualitative and quantitative (Avrahami-Marom, 2016), 21 participants, both male and female, from the

partnership’s steering committee and working groups (eight from Ma’ale Iron and 13 from Megiddo

were surveyed), and 16 were interviewed (six and five, respectively, from each community, in addition to

five Givat Haviva personnel). Participants reported that they were satisfied with the coordination among

the municipalities, and with the level of trust among them. They were also highly satisfied with regard to

the mutual respect demonstrated by everyone. In addition, their level of commitment to the program

was shown to be very high. When asked whether the members of the other municipality cared only for

their own interests, the data show that almost everyone (over 90%) disagreed. This overall satisfaction

demonstrates, as the interviews also showed, a gradual shift toward collaboration among participants.

The second year’s evaluation (Avrahami-Marom, 2017b) shows that, while participants (or rather, col-

laborators) in the program experienced an increase in the level of trust and maintained high level of

mutual respect, there was a decrease in satisfaction in the level of coordination and an increased sense of

communication-failures, and what they perceived as attempts from the other side to impose one’s opin-

ion. Surprisingly, alongside the increase in the level of trust they felt toward the participants from the

other municipality in general, there has been a decrease with regard to their feelings of being able to

count on the other group’s participants, those from the other municipality who serve together with them

on the same committee.

Taken together with what was reported when asked the qualitative questions, a lesson learned is that

the decrease in satisfaction in the second year may have to do with the different levels of expectation they

had for each year: While in the first year, they entered the program with a mindset of participation and

having low expectations regarding the dynamics in the shared realm, and therefore, they were positively

surprised of the accomplishments in the first year, at the end of the second year, their evaluation already

incorporates expectations to fortify collaborative working relations on an ongoing basis—and even aspi- rations for the partnership they may have already sporadically experienced at this stage. The answer to

the question what does it mean to be able to count on the other group’s participants varies: While at the

end of the first year, it is associated with demonstrations of respect and somewhat low expectations with

regard to coordination, being able to count stands for different things at the end of the second year and

includes aspirations for more than what participants sufficed with in the first year. Reports demonstrate

that alongside sporadic experiences of partnership, disappointment from its absence in other instances in

the early stages of the intervention program (the first 2 years) is emphasized. There is an increased ability

to articulate and envision true partnership, but with feelings of frustration that the current, third year of

intervention, should address.

Discussion

The concepts of relational awareness, interdependence, co-evolution, coordinated meaning, etc. are

not strange to current conflict-resolution scholarship and dialog practices (Gergen, 1999), but they set

a real threat in the current Middle-Eastern reality, where each side strives for independence rather than

interdependence, wanting to define itself on its own for its own purposes, and shielding itself from the

other (Bar-Tal, Halperin, & Oren, 2010). The “other” is grasped as posing an existential threat to one’s

group.

In order for the concept of shared society to take hold, it should challenge this shielding and forti-

fication. The clarification of the concept of shared society, and the manner in which certain practices

consistent with the mentioned theoretical underpinnings are developed and implemented as demon-

strated above, can help peacebuilding efforts overcome barriers for setting the conditions for true

partnership.

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198194

From Co-existence to Shared Society Kuttner

Alongside the more concrete set of goals that participants bring to the shared society/shared commu-

nities program on the content level, it is important to have a clear vision and intervention strategy on the

process level that supports the gradual shift from participation through collaboration to partnership. The

conceptual clarifications and demonstrated practical implications described in this article offer practi-

tioners avenues to transform alienating images of the “other” to true partnership.

Further Research

With these theoretical understandings, this article highlights important direction for future inquiries that

focus attention on a paradigm shift that can be found in many disciplines, the shift from individualistic

to a relational understanding of the self and of matter. The article points at new directions for interdisci-

plinary research and for cross-fertilization between disciplines, for further exploration of what can be

learned from relational developments in other fields (such as psychology, communication, physics, brain

research, political science, etc.) for the advancement of shared society on both the theoretical and practi-

cal levels. In addition, future research should be directed toward further development of efficient strate-

gies and interventions that are well-received by participants and have a positive effect with regard to the

cultivation of relational awareness. Empirical study is also needed to evaluate the various strategies and

measure changes in relational awareness, to help examine and learn what can be beneficial in the specific

context in which shared society programs are designed.

A more detailed analysis of each of the levels is needed, specifying how different variables are man-

ifested in each state (e.g., how is “personal commitment” manifested in the participation/collabora-

tion/partnership level). Theoretical research that examines the developmental considerations is also

needed: If each of the levels is seen as a stage in need of transformation to the next, it is important

to clarify what conditions should be met in order to progress to the more developed stage on each

variable.

Also, on the conceptual level, it is important to further develop the linkage between relational premises

and the development of a civil definition of Israeli citizenship and to explore how relational foundations

can help the discourse on ethnicity and religion be more constructive and dialogic. The issues of ethnicity

and religion are sensitive and tend to be divisive, to draw firm boundaries and contrast between two sep-

arated, firm ideologies. From a relational point of view, cultivation of awareness is needed, in an effort to

transform this individualistically held sense of religious identity and of ethnicity; the discourse on ethnic

identity and even the discourse on religious identity can be challenged in new and fascinating ways

through relational premises.

In addition, conversation analysis studies of Jewish–Arab dialogs can help identify barriers to cultiva- tion of relational dynamics, using conversational analysis to examine relational moves in interaction (see

Glenn & Kuttner, 2013). Research on different styles of facilitation, along the lines of similar scholarship

in mediation (see, for example, Kressel & Wall, 2012), is also needed.

Conclusion

In recent years, as mentioned, the concept of “shared society” is gaining popularity. In this article,

I showed that the transition toward shared society can be explained in various ways, and suggested that

this shift incorporates the seeds of a paradigm shift that is worth noting. The various explanations

regarding the nature of the shift and what it embeds, for example, Club De Madrid’s understanding of

the term or the relational understanding described in this article, or the rights-based advocacy for equal-

ity among certain Arab thinkers in Israel, are not mutually exclusive; there is no right or better explana-

tion, but rather an accumulation of reasons that all play a role in this social change. Understanding the

variety of explanations is important if one wishes to support this transition on the ground, as each expla-

nation requires attention and action to help address what is called for in the efforts to build a shared

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198 195

Kuttner From Co-existence to Shared Society

society. Moreover, since the embeddedness of shared society involves a paradigm shift, a lack of clear

vision of its underpinnings will make it difficult to construct a shared society. In other words, conflict

specialists and peace-builders that see the transition from coexistence to shared society as a desired tran-

sition, who wish to help set the conditions for this transition on the ground and to help develop a shared

society in practice, ought to be familiar with the variety of aspects that compose the notion of shared

society. They ought to delve into its underpinnings in order to be able to act accordingly and to help it

materialize. If a profound shift is sought, and the cultivation of true partnership stands as a vision, the

unique and profound challenge of transforming adversity and conflict into relationality and dialog con-

sistent with the zeitgeist ought to be understood and addressed. This transition portrays a profound

transformation in mindset and approach—not only toward the end results of peacebuilding efforts—but in how the human self is, and human interactions are, realized.

References

Abu-Nimer, M. (1999). Dialogue, conflict resolution, and change: Arab-Jewish encounters in Israel. NY: Springer.

Abu-Nimer, M. (2001). Reconciliation, justice and coexistence: Theory and practice. Lanham, MD: Lexington

Books.

Abu-Nimer, M. (2004). Coexistence and Arab-Jewish encounters in Israel: Potential and challenges. Journal of

Social Issues, 60, 404–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00121.x Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319–343. https://doi.org/10. 1037/h0027352

Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. Katz (Ed.),

Toward the elimination of racism. NY: Pergamon.

Avrahami-Marom, A. (2016). Evaluation report of Megido regional council and Ma’ale-Iron regional council Shared

Society program, year one. Givat-Haviva (internal document, unpublished).

Avrahami-Marom, A. (2017a). Evaluation report of “Mentikatna” teachers’ training program. Givat-Haviva (inter-

nal document, unpublished).

Avrahami-Marom, A. (2017b). Evaluation report of Megido regional council and Ma’ale-Iron regional council

Shared Society program, year two. Givat-Haviva (internal document, unpublished).

Bar-Tal, D., Halperin, E., & Oren, N. (2010). Socio–psychological barriers to peace making: The case of the Israeli Jewish society. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4(1), 63–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01018.x

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1996[1985]). Habits of the heart: Individ-

ualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bohm, D. (2000[1996]). On dialogue. London & New York: Routledge.

Buber, M. (1987[1923]). I and thou. New York: Macmillan.

Buber, M. (2002[1932]). Dialogue. In M. Buber (Ed.), Between man and man. New York: Routledge.

Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (1994). The promise of mediation: Responding to conflict through empowerment and

recognition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict (New and

Revised edition). San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Club de Madrid. (2006). “Declaration for shared societies”. http://www.clubmadrid.org/sspguide/site/index?lan=en

Cobb, S. (1994). A narrative perspective on mediation: Toward the materialization of the ‘storytelling’ metaphor.

In J. P. Folger & T. S. Jones (Eds.), New directions in mediation: Communication research and perspectives. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd edn). New-

York: Penguin.

Gergen, K. (1999). Dialogic Potentials. In K. Gergen (Ed.), An invitation to social construction (pp. 142–166). Thousand-Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. New York: Oxford University Press.

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198196

From Co-existence to Shared Society Kuttner

Glenn, P., & Kuttner, R. (2013). Dialogue, dispute resolution, and talk-in-interaction: On empirical studies of

ephemeral phenomena. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/nc mr.12001

Greenhalgh, L., & Lewicki, R. (2003). New directions in teaching negotiations from walton and mckersei to the

new millennium. In T. A. Kochan & D. B. Lipsky (Eds.), Negotiations and change: From the workplace to society.

New-York: Cornel University Press.

Halabi, R. (2000). Dialogue between identities: Jewish and Arab encounters in Neve Shalom. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Hakib-

butz Hameuchad.

Kahanoff, M. (2010). Exposed to dialogue: Encounters between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Be’er Sheva, Israel: Ben-

Gurion University (in Hebrew).

Kahanoff, M. (2016). Jews and Arabs in Israel encountering their identities. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Kant, E. (1794). An answer to the question: What is enlightenment. http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Kant/Enlighte

nment/what-is-enlightenmentKant.htm

Kressel, K., & Wall, J. (2012). Introduction to the special issue on mediator style. Negotiation and Conflict Man-

agement Research, 5, 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00110.x Kuttner, R. (2006). Striving to fulfill the promise: The purple house conversation and the practice of transforma-

tive mediation. Negotiation Journal, 22, 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2006.00105.x Kuttner, R. (2012). Cultivating dialogue: From fragmentation to relationality in conflict interaction. Negotiation

Journal, 28, 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2012.00342.x Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., & Minton, R. (1985). Negotiation. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Maayan,Y.,&Atamni,S.(2015).Mentikatna:Regionalsharededucation.Israel:GivatHaviva(inHebrewandArabic).

May, T. (2017). I’m determined to build the shared society for everyone. The Telegraph News, Jan. 7, 2017, at

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/07/determined-build-shared-society-everyone/ (last visited March

23, 2017).

McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. (1998). Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Meir, E. (2006). Reading buber’s ‘I’ and ‘You’ as a guide to conflict management and social transformation. In B.

Molov (Ed.), The legacy of the German-Jewish religious and cultural heritage: A basis for German-Israeli dialogue.

Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University.

Mnookin, R., Peppet, S., & Tulumello, A. (2000). Beyond winning: Negotiating to create value in deals and disputes.

Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Moore, C. (1986). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pettigrew, T. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.49.1.65

Roval-Lipshitz, T. (2006). Practices of shared work. Shatil (in Hebrew) www.shatil.org.il/download/file/fid/175

Sabag, R., Mar’ee, H., Cohen, J., Mazor, Y., Gerlitz, R., & Askakalla, J. (2014). Equality regions: Advancing partner-

ships between Jewish and Arab municipalities. Sikkuy Non-Profit (in Hebrew) http://www.sikkuy.org.il/wp-

content/uploads/2014/11/ezorei_shivion_he.pdf

Salomon, G., & Issawi, M. (2009). The public committee’s report for forming policy on education for shared living

between Jews and Arabs in Israel. [in Hebrew]

Schiff, A. (2014). Reaching a mutual agreement: Readiness theory and coalition building in the Aceh peace pro-

cess. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 7(1), 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12026 Seul, J. (1999). How transformative is transformative mediation?: A constructive-developmental assessment. Ohio

State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 15(1), 135–172. Shotter, J. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organization Studies,

27, 585–604. Susskind,L.,&Field,P.(1996).Dealingwithanangrypublic:Themutualgainapproach.New-York:TheFreePress.

Taylor, C. (1991). The dialogic self. In D. Hilly, J. Bohman & R. Shusterman (Eds.), The interpretive turn: Philoso-

phy, science, culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (2000). Narrative mediation: A new approach to conflict resolution. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198 197

Kuttner From Co-existence to Shared Society

Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (2008). Practicing narrative mediation: Loosening the grip of conflict. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Zartman, I. W. (2001). The timing of peace initiatives: Hurting stalemates and ripe moments. The Global Review

of Ethnopolitics, 1(1), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14718800108405087

Ran Kuttner is an Associate Professor of Dispute Resolution (expert track) at the University of Haifa,

where he teaches at the International Graduate Program in Peace and Conflict Management Studies. He

also serves as an academic advisor to Givat Haviva, an organization that aims at building a shared society

and dialogue among Jews and Arabs in Israel. Prior to his return to Israel, he was an Associate Professor

of Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at the Werner Institute, Creighton University (USA) and preced-

ing his arrival at Creighton, he was a Visiting Scholar at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law

School for three years. He is a certified mediator and mediation teacher in Israel and consults to organi-

zations and community mediation centers that work towards a more dialogic Israeli society in imple-

menting collaborative conflict engagement approaches. He teaches courses on dialogue, negotiation,

mediation, group facilitation, leadership and conflict resolution, and peacebuilding strategies.

Volume 10, Number 3, Pages 179–198198

From Co-existence to Shared Society Kuttner