Again, thank you, everyone,
for coming today.
I will just like to take this moment to
thank the committee for working with me.
In particular is Karina Mason,
since the beginning of this project,
we have worked together.
I truly appreciate your guidance for
this particular project.
And I also would like to thank friends and
family members for
being with me and encouraging me
to complete this dissertation.
Especially my wife, it wasn't easy for
her but she did all she could do
to make this process easy for me.
So without taking too much of your time,
I would like to begin my presentation.
As you could see the title
of my dissertation is
Understanding the Longstanding
Conflict Between the Banyamulenge and
Indigenous Tribes in Eastern DRC.
Why do neighbors fall to co-exist?.
So my interest here was on
intergroup coexistence.
And I looked into this area of Uvira
which is in Eastern Democratic Republic
of the Congo.
And the reason for that is the interest
came from my previous research.
Because when I carried it
up to research in 2011,
there was an answer to questions that
I wanted to pursue at this level.
And in that particular case, I was
looking into the role that conduct and
empathy play in promoting
intergroup coexistence.
And for that reason, so
I thought I could go back and
revisit all the questions
that remained unanswered.
And if you can see at that map,
that dark there, that's Uvira,
which is closer to Burundi,
it's a border town, close to Burundi.
So the research problem for
this study is to look at the literature.
Really support the idea that a contact
to promote positive attitude and
reduce groups prejudice.
And the same time also,
there is wide spread support for
intergroup empathy, saying that it
leads positive intergroup relations.
But the problem with that as
my research founded that,
this case of Uvira really I
will say clearly contradicts or
contrasts the evidence from
the existing leadership.
That links intergroup contact and empathy
with positive intergroup relations.
And the reason for that was,
you could see that people,
the two groups that I was looking at,
I was looking the Bavibafuliru again,
this is a name that off my on
creation the Bavibafuliru.
It's made up of the Bavira and
the Bafuliru.
And then the other tribe
is the Banyamulenge.
So the conflict that has been there and
these groups have been engaged
in some forms of contacts.
And in this expression of empathic
feelings about what had happened to
them in the past.
But in reality once you look at what
is happening with Iran right now,
they have been really unable to improve
their relations to peacefully coexist.
And so
my question is why is that the case.
So this lead me to have this
main research question.
Why would members of rival groups engage
in contacts to address their differences
while expressing an empathy for
one another?
But at the same time
they failed to coexist.
In other words,
does intergroup contexts improve
relations between rivals,
in post conflict situations?
And also does intergroup empathy
leading to improving positive relations
between parties with a beat up past.
So we'll find out.
And for that, the objective here
was to try and examine the role
that intergroup contact and
empathy play in improving relations.
In communities that have
experienced a violent past.
And also to try to analyze the best
practices to force the peaceful
coexistence among rival groups.
While bridging the gap in
literature on this subject.
But, I also examined the extent
to which acceptance of
the legitimacy of the other,
notion of positive cooperation,
interdependency, and
common goals for the future.
How this can have or
can improve relations and
ultimately facilitate
intergroup coexistence.
So why is this case important,
why do we have to care about this issue?
First of all, I would like to say that
there is really zero research out
there explaining why improvement
of intergroup relations failed.
In places where intergroup
contact have occurred,
or somehow empathy is
present among adversaries.
And in the case of Uvira as well, most
researchers have primarily demonstrated
that the local conflicts in that area has
been driven by issues like land dispute.
Political power, issue of citizenship of
the Banyamulenge and also bad governance.
There hasn't been anything today,
there has been little,
little research looking into
the concept of legitimacy of the other.
Which we will find out
it was very important.
Very, very important for
this investigation.
And this research addressed also
the gap found in existing literature.
Providing an alternative explanation
that demonstrates why intergroup
contact and empathy alone
could be insufficient in predicting
improvement of intergroup relations.
So these are three sub questions that I
wanted to address in this investigation.
So I wanted to look now.
We know that there is really widespread
support for contact and empathy.
And in cases where there aren't.
So I wanted to say what
are the necessary conditions that ensure
positive outcomes of contact in search for
building positive intergroup relations?
And the question two was,
When does intergroup empathy fail
to contribute to the improvement
of intergroup relations?
And the third one is, what factors
contribute to the process of breaking
intergroup social boundaries in order
to promote peaceful coexistence.
So with that I looked at a variety of
leadership to really help me understand
that these particular phenomenon and
the issues that I was studying.
And obviously contact was one of
the theories I was trying to understand.
What types of contact,
where and when, where and how.
And so this the assumption or the concept
that the more contact you have with
people from the other group, the better
you can start to understand each other.
And that's how and
somehow that could help you improve your
relations Does that okay everywhere?
Maybe not, so we will find out.
And empathy as well is the same way.
There has been really a wide spread
support showing that empathy,
increased empathy is viewed as
facilitating positive attitude.
And promoting social behavior
toward members of the out group.
I look to your story to your
literature of legitimacy,
and this very critical in the sense
that coexistence also includes
the notion of accepting
the legitimacy of the other.
And for this case of Uvira,
you can see one group, the Banyamulenge,
for instance, they continue
to question their legitimacy.
And I thought looking at the literature
to understand what are the mechanism,
what is beyond all the tensions.
And that type of literature
could help me understand.
And power is,
as I spoke about, legitimacy.
Power coexistence also includes
the notion of balance of power.
So this, in any sense, in some places,
when there is imbalance of power,
it can lead into conflict.
And somehow, depending on areas, but
again, even in the Eastern DRC,
this case of Uvira.
I made that assumption
that power was somehow
problematic in hindering coexistence.
But again,
we will talk more when I started to
cover the findings if
the assumption was right or not.
And so we also looked into
the literature of truth and trust.
Truth, again, when there's
a lack of trust among parties,
there's a problem that it could also
affect coexistence between people.
And this also covered social identity
theories, specifically looked into
the issue of social categorization
theory and social boundaries.
But in particular, the social boundary,
for the conflict like the one in Uvira,
where the boundaries
could be either physical,
the political boundaries,
the citizenship boundaries.
And all of that I needed
to understand the sorts and
also the mechanism that could
allow to break those boundaries.
And finally, looked also into
the literature for cognitive and
emotional theories and
some other tools for
creating coexistence,
which education for coexistence and
notions of tolerance and
forgiveness were also explored.
And now when you look at the case and
then I was trying to say,
the area of the study,
why did I really picked Uvira compared
to other places in Eastern DRC?
The question of choosing this particular
area was due to its specificity.
Looking at, for instance, it's in Uvira
where the first war and second war,
in 1996 and 1998, was begun, and that
they took birth in that particular city.
And with that, there were a lot
of killings from both side.
Both the Banyamulenge and
the Bavibafuliru killed each other.
And that really led to some kind of
tensions between those communities.
And at the same time, again,
even though some other tribes
live in that particular area.
But I would say a large
population representative of both
the Bavibafuliru and
Banyamulenge is right there in Uvira.
And it is in Uvira where the Mulenge,
which is a disputed territory is located.
Each of these community claims
ownership to that land.
So they claim, and
that also at the same time brought a lot
of tensions between these communities.
Political-wise, I'd say that the political
tensions are higher in Uvra than in any
other parts in Eastern DRC.
Again, the dynamics, it's where
the center, where we find a high
percentage of this population
in that particular area.
And so for me, I thought all of
these dynamics make Uvira a more
remarkable site than other
places in Eastern DRC.
So this is a model that I developed.
And do you see,
if you can look at the contact model,
which lead you to understand how
coexistence might be happening.
And if you could look at on the left side,
I saw the negative factors of contact.
If you look at these issues
like absence of trust,
impermeable boundaries, stereotyped
others and intergroup prejudice.
So when these factors are present,
they could lead to the type of
contact that we call negative contact.
And when these factors,
the negative factors of contact occur,
then they could lead to negative contact.
And things like superficial encounter or
superficial contact can happen,
or some kind of unwanted contact.
And also one of the notion that was
found in the literature is this notion
of intergroup anxiety.
We give in to the sense that people
don't really know what to expect
from the other party,
and collective threat.
But if you look on the right side,
before it goes there,
when we have negative contact,
it's actually lead to, when you talk
about the outcome of coexistence, this
type of contact will ultimately lead to
negative outcome in terms of promoting or
fostering coexistence.
And then on the right side,
we have the positive factors of contact,
and interdependency is listed there.
And then we have common identity,
when people started to have this common
identity before they were all separated.
And then they come, they created this one
identity that they could all refer it to.
Legitimacy, as well, and power balance,
including truth,
tolerance and forgiveness.
And so for me,
I say if these factors are also present,
they lead to the type of contact
that we call the positive contact.
And at that point, people might start to
have this high degree of cooperation.
And they could feel some kind of
equal status among the groups.
And they could start to develop some
kind of common goals to project for
their future.
Cross-group friendship can
manifest itself as well.
Perspective-taking in a sense that
before when we're on the left side,
perspective-taking could be problematic.
But when they have already this kind
of friendship that is taking place,
they have legitimacy and truth and
tolerance, perspective-taking then becomes
something that could help in the mechanism
of moving toward the coexistence.
And finally, we have enhanced empathy and
institutional support.
For enhanced empathy, again,
we'll explain more, including both
institutional support through defining
why I put all these things in there.
But this model, again,
it's interconnected.
Altogether, they're interconnected.
So if you see the right side,
once these are present, again,
the possibility of seeing positive
outcomes to coexistence desire.
The methodology then, so what I used here
is qualitative method of inquiry and
employed case study, in particular,
looking into the case of Uvira.
And the constructivist approach paradigm
that researchers I encourage
to attempt to understand
the complex world of lived experience from
the point of view of those who live it.
So in a sense, it is to try to explain
the stories of the participant.
And my role is just to,
my voice will appear when it
comes to analyzing these stories.
And then the data collection
used is Skype and
telephone interviews and
triangulated with published research
materials of this particular subject
matter to make the sense of it.
And purposive sampling is what I used,
only the Bavibafuliru and
the Banyamulenge living in Uvira
participated in the study.
I didn't look at any other Tribes there,
for the reason that I stated before.
The dynamics of these groups
have been at odds for long time.
And so the interest was I wanted to
restrict specifically to these particular
groups, I wanted to understand what
is going on in that particular place.
And I interviewed 40 people,
20 from each community.
Ten men and
women from each community as well.
And the data analysis,
I used theme analysis,
in the sense where I read through
the materials and tried to look at common
themes that emerged from
the stories of the participant.
With that I would like then to discuss
the major findings of the research.
In terms of looking at contact
itself I tried to understand
the perception of the participant when it
comes to the role that contact played.
And I ask them what they
believed contact could play in
facilitating co-existence in Uvira.
And at the same time I had to
ask the type of contact that is
taking place as we spoke.
And the common themes that really emerged
there it's that there was this agreement
from the participant that somehow contact
could help them improve their relation and
it could help them accept each other,
that was one of the terms.
They said contact could open this
kind of cooperation among the groups,
these rival groups.
There's also the notion of maybe they
could start to tolerate one another.
But when I flipped the coin
a little bit now to ask them okay,
what type of contact do you have?
The story changed, so they said,
my God, well actually, it's bad.
So if you look at this chart here,
85% of the Bavibafuliro
believed that contact between them and
the Banyamulenge is poor.
And the same time in Banyamulenge,
50% said well, the whole contact
situation here, we haven't been in
contact very well, but it's also poor.
So 67.5% of the total of the participant
believed that contact was
very poor in that time.
So I will explain later why
that's the difference in there.
So as you can see, this is really
consistent with the literature in
the sense that contact can
be sometimes superficial.
As we saw out there,
it was indicated even by the participant.
And therefore, when you have
this superficial contact it has
sometimes less impact
on improving relations.
And as you could see what Peter Grew say,
its a negative contact, or chaos.
Sometimes in situations where
intergroup competition is present, or
involving intergroup conflict.
One example here,
that's one participant said about
the type of conduct said that there is
need for honesty in all exchanges between
the two groups because what we
are seeing now is a game of hypocrisy.
So, there was this notion that
contact was hypocritical.
They said it was ironic and what
was happening there,
they describe as hypocrisy.
And in terms of empathy as well,
so if you can look at the charts.
65% of the Banyamulenge,
look on the left side,
55% of the Banyamulenge believed
that the empathic feelings
expressed by the other side it could
not help them improve relations.
And then, similarly, we have about
60% of the Bafuliro who also said so.
And what they explained and what we're
saying that the common theme were,
you can't ameliorate our
relation there because,
first, this dislike of trust
among these communities.
And when I asked about the level
of sincerity of empathy itself,
and the same topic we imagine,
it's empathy is
hypocritical, is ironic,
whatever they say.
We express empathy for one another but
it looks like it doesn't mean anything.
And they cited things
like continued hatred.
They continued to say that people
continued to see each other as enemies and
there is all this notion
of disdain among them.
And so, if you look at the chart and
what participants said, you could see that
the findings of the Uvira conflict
clearly contrast the widespread
existing literature on the role that
empathy plays in improving relations.
And look at the example of what one
participant said about empathy.
Empathy between the Banyamulenge and
the Bavafuliro is nuts this year.
When they live together they show some
kinds of empathy, but the behavior
they exhibit toward one another show that
there isn't any true empathy among them.
And this, if you look at the literature
that I was looking at, and
it could be explained in a sense.
Empathy, say that empathy sometimes
work at the interpersonal level.
It works better the interpersonal
level but when it comes to groups,
especially when groups there are two
major problems that they raise there.
When it comes to group,
rival groups frequently come
with heavy baggage of issues.
They have a lot of problems to deal with,
and just empathy alone, duh.
Well, we can have all
these kind of empathy, but
is it gonna address all the problems?
And that's one of the issues
that Ahmed and Baston raised.
And secondly also, they say the group may
have a history of disdain and mistrust,
and most importantly they may be
still involved in outright conflict.
So if you're there you're
still experiencing a conflict,
and then sometimes maybe creates
an empathy that could have less
effect in facilitating co-existence.
And when it comes to co-existence again
I wanted to understand the participant
perception of what they thought was
hindering co-existence between them.
And these are the common
themes that again emerged,
they cited things like
the citizenship of the Banyamulenge.
Both sides were saying that until today,
as we speak,
the Banyamulenge said people from one side
continue to believe that we're foreigners.
And then there was also the land issue
which I said that both group continues
to claim ownership of this land called
Mulenge, in the territory of Uvira, and
they clash over it.
And the killings,
these are during the war,
these communities killed each other and
what people expressing there
was that they continued to have these
memories of what happened in the past.
Sometimes they feel like they are not
ready to forgive whatever happened and so
that for
them is probably hindering co-existence.
Trust was also the issue or
that was raised, is continued to be this
lack of trust between the two communities.
And politics was that most of
the participant who expressed that
politicians continue to fuel
the conflict there for their own agenda.
And also there was the cattle issues,
that so for people understand that area,
in Uvira, the Banyamulenge owned the
cattle and the Bavibafuliro were farmers.
So most of the time [FOREIGN]
accused the [FOREIGN].
And that they are came to
destroy their farms and
some times they leads to clashes.
Just in that particular area.
And that was also cited as one of
the problems leading to coexistence.
These three measure I looked into,
citizenship, land.
And They scored higher and
you can see 66.7% of the.
Believed that citizenship was an issue,
the citizenship of the.
And competitive theory 33% from the.
And then 76% of the believed land.
Dispute was a prolem compared to 23.1.
And when it comes to
killing 70% of the believe
the killings was problematic
compared to 30%.
And if I can quote some of what
the particpants say today.
We could see that someone would say.
Lack of competition is
die to the non-acceptance
of the Banyamulenge's Congolese though
the loan granted us nationality.
Another one said land issue is
the cause of non-coexistence in Uvera.
The Babafule will say that we
the Banyamulenge occupy their land.
While they know our children were born
in Mulenge and they dont know Rwanda.
Way they are always,
way we are always reminded we belong to.
And here, as you can see the third
one who said that the are criminals.
They kill without mercy,
they speak a langauge of Rwanda, and
like to dominate others.
So you could see these kind of
animosities that really continue,
to take place in that area.
And if I move on to the other
things that emerge in terms of
the things that could
facilitate coexistence then.
And what they say here the issue that
was quoted high was intermarriage.
And what participants were saying
you know we live in the area well.
But we don’t see people from this
side don't reach to the other.
It's kind of the mirror
within the community.
And they thought if they can still
intermarry it could address their problem.
Is it gonna be maybe, maybe not.
We have seen some other
cases in other places.
And collaboration, they said it very,
very important in the sense,
lack of collaboration and tolerance.
If we can continue,
if we can begin to tolerate one another.
Especially the Banyamulenge
raise this issue a lot.
In the sense that they see
continuing to not wanting to
tolerate them in one way or another.
And forgiveness, this was saying
Here's my spreadsheet before.
Due to what happened during the time
of war with the killings and
everyone has made up their mind.
And sometimes they express this
attitude of not be ready to forgive.
And one of these,
some of the quotes from the participants.
See part of the problem is
that some people on that side.
When they say that side it means
the other tribe don't tolerate the.
It is unbelievable that no matter how much
we say that we are proud
of being Congolese.
The others continued to
be suspicious of us.
And call us all sort of
names including foreigners.
And other participants did a,
we must encourage intermarriage.
Because it would be difficult for
the two groups to engage in violence
if they see each other as family.
You can't kill people from the other tribe
when you know they have your sister or
your brother married from that tribe.
And so these are other common themes
that emerge when it comes to the,
ways of addressing co-existence.
And the participant way of talking about.
Given the, you know there's also mis,
a lot of misinformation on.
And they though education for
our is important.
There was the notion of acceptance,
we thought people should.
If people begin to accept with each
other as family as fellow citizen.
That could help them to
improve their relation.
And out peace activities
in the sense that now
this dislink of everyone
is around their corner.
There is no this sense of togetherness,
working together to accomplish something.
And most importantly, especially for
the Bangamulenger they raised this issue
of need for government intervention.
That they think the government
is not participating.
And it is actually facilitating
that these things will continue.
They call it the inaction for
the Banyamulenge.
They said it was kind of unacceptable.
And that is when it comes
to the issue of legitimacy.
So the perception of
the Banyamulenge status.
When I ask about this question,
I asked the honest participant.
I want to know the perception
of just the status of the.
Asking the question what
do you think is the status?
And the problem is,
I never mention anything about citizen.
And all the answers tended to
citizenship because that's what
they view as the most important thing.
And two, the they just told me,
all of them, 100%, we are Congolese.
We are Congolese and nothing more.
And on the other hand, if you can
see the chart, the say, no, 55%.
They didn't know
Bayamulenge are foreigners.
And 45% of those who said
the Bayamulenge were Congolese.
Had some explanation to say
why they believed they are.
They didn't say just 100% Congolese,
no, they said, they are Congolese.
Maybe because the constitution
granted them citizenship.
Otherwise They're not.
So we can see here that
55% of the say that the.
They stay conviced that is from Rowanda.
Even though the constitution they said,
the contitution granted the citizenship.
And this is what one participant said.
In my opinion, no matter what status
has been granted to the Banyamulenge
by the constitution or institutions.
They're viewed as foreigners and
enemies full stop.
And so this uncertain status of
the Banyamulenge in terms of citizenship.
Has to be understood as one of the main
challenges of future peace efforts.
And this is one of the researchers
who made this conclusions.
And you can see,
even this researcher also, I would say,
can make a similar conclusion.
And then it comes to power.
Like I said in the beginning,
I made this assumption.
That somehow power was problematic
in terms of power balance.
But the issue of power balance, I would
say that it wasn't raised
to be problematic.
But what was the concern, especially for
the Bavibafuliru who said.
Well the question is not about
Banyamulenge having power.
Or if they participate in politics,
they are everywhere.
But the problem that they said
it's the legitimacy of the power.
Who they said these people are foreigners.
I don't know why they should have power
here, they should participate in politics.
And so they thought the access to.
Got access to power
through the use of force.
And so these are again the common themes.
The issue of Banyamulenge citizenship.
And the Banyamulenge say that for
those who are rejecting their citizenship,
it's either they are expressing
hatred toward their community.
If we could read one of the participants
here who say that, well, no,
political participation of the
Banyamulenge cannot increase the tensions.
The proof is that Banyamulenge are already
occupying posts in government,
including the vice presidency,
in the past.
The problem is elsewhere.
Their identity and
land issues seem to be the major problems.
They participated in the wars,
this is the reason why they
don't get along with the others.
And then, the other one said,
no, Banyamulenge political participation
won't increase any tensions.
They are already senators and ministers.
There is instead a need to
resolve the issue of coexistence.
The Banyamulenge must recognize
themselves as Congolese.
And stop playing the double agent and
showing double side of double nationality,
wanting to be Congolese and
Rwandan at the same time.
[LAUGH] Okay, any problem with that?
Yes, there is a problem,
for the Bantu Bafuliiru.
And so interdependence,
interdependency was also one of
the concepts that I wanted you to look at.
And I was trying to understand,
what is the participant
perception about interdependency?
If they started to depend on one another,
what do they think would happen?
So these are, again,
the common themes that they said, okay,
maybe if we started to,
we begin to depend on one another.
They will be things like encourage
people to seek a common interest.
They will start to work together,
they said.
Consolidate mutual respect.
Engage in commercial exchange.
Maintain extended contact and
obviously, develop friendship.
They thought interdependency can do that.
And if you could see the chart,
100% of the Bafuliiru said yes,
this is something that can help us.
And 70% of the Bavi Bafuliiru
believed this story as well.
So the conclusion here, as I can look at,
what I want to bring is
the notion of looking at the model
that I developed in the contact model.
So this investigation revealed things
like positive factors of contact,
such as forgiveness, power balance,
legitimacy of the other,
or common in-group identity
that create an atmosphere
conducive to positive contact and
coexistence outcome.
But what we have to retain from this
is the model is interconnected somehow.
And so all factors presented in
the model interact with one another.
And they must be a pursued, I would say,
simultaneously in order for
the model to work very well.
So if you, for instance, you want to
address the issue of forgiveness or
just the issue of trust and
you leave the others.
What it will end up doing
is you could diminish,
the conflict would
diminish in its intensity.
But at the same time, there are other
dynamics that will remain unresolved and
protracting the conflict
to an indefinite length.
So if I can answer, if I try to answer
the question number one, just in case.
What are the necessary conditions that
ensure positive outcomes of contact in
the search for
building positive intergroup relations?
So the model really
addresses some of this part,
where you could see the participants
say they articulated it very well.
That the current contact is not sincere,
it is ironic, it is hypocritical.
And so for this specific conflict of
Bavira, this list again could be modified.
It's not the kind of findings,
it could be modified based on conflict.
But if I look at the conflict of Bavira,
some of the things that we mentioned in
the model such as
the contact must sincere.
Group must be willing to engage in
a high-level degree of cooperation.
The group must tolerate one another,
accepting the legitimacy of the other.
And initiate cross-group friendship and
seek some common goals or
interests and depend on one another.
So some of these are great ideas
that you can put together in attempt
of promoting coexistence in this community
that is struggling to come to coexist.
And then in terms of question number two.
Which, when does intergroup empathy
fail to contribute to the improvement of
groups relations?
I would say that it can be concluded
that empathy has less impact or
effect in building intergroup
relations in conflict
situations where groups are still
involved in open conflict.
The reasons that I mentioned, there is
these baggages that they come with.
There's still a lot of
issues to be resolved.
And just saying sorry,
I'm sorry for what happened.
And yeah, it's fine, I'm okay.
But sorry, too,
it seems we have some other problems.
And those kind of issues were raised
by the participants by saying, yeah,
we have seen this kind of thing.
People just come in we don't even
know why they're saying that.
Is it maybe that they want to please us,
but it's not true.
So even scholars have found that empathy
may also have a lesser effect in conflict
where groups exhibit history of disdain or
mistrust.
And the reason for that is while
groups are still in open conflict,
tension may be high over conflict issues.
To the extent that even expressed
empathy may be disregarded or
unwelcomed, if I can say.
Then question number three, again,
this I was inspired by Tilly.
You develop this kind of, the mechanism
precipitating boundary change.
And I'm advocating that for
this particular conflict of Uvira.
Tilly talked about the mechanism,
things like encounter.
For me I say search for cooperative
interdependence, the creation of common
group identity, because we have
the groups that continue to be rejected.
If they can be brought in and
be part of the community, and
feel that they have some
kind of equal status.
And then which government
intervention was a problem,
maybe they could participate in one way or
another.
The effective intergroup conversation
which can take any form of dialogue.
We have the conversation here
to address our differences and
there's an ocean of incentives to shift.
I could go more, but
time is not on our side now.
The research contribution,
the contribution for this research.
I would say that many researchers
have not really been able
to explore this concept of legitimacy
of the other in the Uvira conflict.
So I was able to really
bring this up front and
show the other side that has not
been explored by many researchers.
And one of the thing is that this
investigation has shown that
there should be a clear
distinction between.
The distinction must be made between the
acceptance of the Banyamulenge as citizen
of Congo versus their general acceptance
as legitimate members of the society.
And what happens is like most of
researchers have focused on the first one.
It is the acceptance of
Banyamulenge as citizens,
which limits attention to
the nationality issue.
Rather than also paying
attention to whether people see
the nationality of the Banyamulenge
as a problem of access to power,
and if it's legitimate or illegitimate.
So those kind of things
have been explored.
We just talked about nationality.
What is it?
What is it exactly that you?
So I was able to differentiate
the local versus the national level.
And most researchers I would
say that currently studies have
not explored a contact hypotheses or
intergroup empathy.
But the limitation then for
this study was that.
I tried,
I envisioned in the beginning to have
observation as my motive of
information of collecting data.
But, due to reason beyond
my I’ll say my fort,
I couldn’t travel to the Congo.
And therefore I end up carrying out
just a phone in and Skype interview.
So that did not allow me to get a good
sense of the subject interactions,
because I was trying to look at
the notion of hypocrisy and all of that.
But again, at the same time,
I do believe the responsive
that the participant provided
were satisfactory and provided me with a
clear picture of the types of contact and
empathy taking place in Uvira despite
my own lack of personal observation.
And one other thing is that due to the
specificity of this conflict, I would say
that Uvira has its specificity to set it
apart from other similar of the situation.
And for that reason, the finding of
the Uvira that informed the morrow,
I created it does not have
to automatically be applied
to other region of eastern DRC or
other nations.
But at the same time we
could look at the if we
are waiting on A conflict
related to [INAUDIBLE].
A conflict that involve coexistence.
You can still use the model and
apply it using this specificity of
the conflict you're looking at.
But this one was just specific due to
the dynamics of conflict in Uvira.
They might look different from
what you're looking at, so
you don't just to keep in mind about that.
But you can use the model and
plug those other dynamics that you
might be looking at in your own case.
And implication for practice then, I would
say that the nuance that I enumerated in
terms of the acceptance of Bayamulenge's
citizen versus member of the society.
This must be an additional insight that
could help practitioners maybe separate
issues of national and local laborers,
as they formulate an intervention
strategy to address or
try to resolve the problem.
And also the fundings of this research,
it give practitioners more insight of
the difficulty of intergroup empathy and
intergroup contact
in the sense that therefore this should
allow practitioner to consider some
harder alternative intervention and
rather than doing the same thing.
But if you look at the model,
it could be inspiring one way or another.
And when it comes to conflict resolution,
the contact model that I developed
can be explored by practitioners and
researchers in their work in Uvira,.
And for the reason why is like we're
able to identify the positive and
negative factors of contact.
And if they could promote
the positive factors,
that could facilitate outcomes or
to fostering coexistence.
So some recommendation for
future research then.
I say that for the future research,
any future research may be focused
on finding mechanism needed to
diffuse the superficial and
unwanted conduct that participants say,
it's fake.
So how would you translate that?
So my research was able to identify or
to provide some of the answers
over how to address the concern.
I personally believe that more
studies are needed to understand,
necessary conditions that may allow
members of group to shift from being
uncooperative to being cooperative.
And in other one, another recommendation
was for this particular place or
other places where the topic of
interlude empathy is relevant,
we should closely study conditions
needed to enhance empathy.
Because empathy here, it's being
portrayed like is a positive thing.
But if there is no enhanced empathy,
if it is fake or
ironic like in the case of Uvira
it could be also problematic.
So more research we need to look at
especially for post-conference situation.
And if I could end just with a positive
note here I would say that my hope,
I hope that the findings of this
research will give more insight for
the future research on the issue
of intergroup coexistence,
especially in the Great Lakes
region of Africa.
And the reason that is while
intergroup coexistence has been
studied in that region.
Especially in countries like Burundi, or
Rwanda, little progress has been made to
comprehend some of the complex
issues entering coexistence,
and allow the process of
building intergroup relations.
And so it is my hope that researchers and
peace builders will find that these
discoveries, these findings really
inspiring for their own work.
And thank you very much.
>> [APPLAUSE]
>> Okay, thank you very much.
And Eloise is our
distinguished outside member.
We're very, very thankful for
helping us with our work here.
>> Anyway,
thank you.
>> Appreciate.
>> This is very good work.
I really appreciate reading it.
>> Thank you.
>> And the pressentation is even better.
>> Thank you.
>> I can tell that you practiced.
>> Thank you.
>> [LAUGH]
>> Thank you so much.
>> That always helps.
>> Thank you.
>> Lots of things that I really liked
about the work.
I will give you my last time.
>> Mm-hm.
>> The problem that you have chose to
study inventory for DRC,
the African Great Lakes region.
And that's already a grabbing because
you're really in fact urgent.
He should forget.
I really, really liked, in particular,
appreciated your systematic
review of the literature.
And always skillfully weaving in and
taking us back to your research questions
and the purpose of the study so
that we know why you are reading
what you are reading.
It's really extensive,
it's unusually extensive, that's why
we ended up with over 300 pages.
And I found that particularly informative.
Your description of methods sometimes
in programs that researchers
have is to assume that when you tell
somebody hey I did a case study and
this is a contingent study.
You're not assuming that people
will automatically know.
You did not make that assumption.
There is research I really value
that taking that's what it is.
And why you think this would be
in that appropriate strategy.
For organizing your research and
collecting and analyzing data.
Again, you have maintained focus
on your research questions.
Because then the work became very
coherent from beginning to end.
[SOUND] Sp those are the many
things that really
make the work particularly valuable to me.
As a scholar who I was very
interested in the country,
int he region.
>> Okay.
>> Now as I read closely,
then of course I'm sure you expect
that I would say something.
>> Absolutely.
>> [LAUGH]
>> That needs to be improved.
>> [LAUGH] Right, right.
>> Right you know of it right?
>> Yep.
>> Okay good so no bad feelings or
nothing.
>> Absolutely not.
>> Okay good.
[LAUGH]
>> She's developing a contract.
>> Right.
[LAUGH]
>> So I thought I'm going to
read some notes that I wrote throughout
>> Dissertation.
You refer to the quote, unquote,
failure of the two groups to coexist.
And then at some point I wondered if you
could maybe change that characterization.
To discuss existence in terms
of a continuum instead of
implying that it's a yes or no paradigm.
>> Good.
>> It made me feel like you're saying it's
either they co-exist or they don't.
When we know that by the sheer complexity.
Of inter-group relations and
share complexity of conflict.
You know, there is a broad spectrum
of people maybe sharing meals.
But wives still not trusting one another
to watch their children, for instance.
I'm making up this example.
People maybe worshiping together but
were still not really opening
up to support one another.
So I think coexistence is a continuous,
so in otherwise I had.
Trouble with the characterization of
failure-
>> Mm-hm.
Right, right.
>> To coexist,
which I think might even
lead to the revision
of one of your research questions-
>> Mm-hm.
>> Where you promise to ensure-
>> Mm-hm.
>> Peaceful coexistance.
Yeah question number one.
What are the necessary conditions
that ensure positive outcomes?
This is social science.
We can't be sure of anything.
>> Right.
>> [LAUGH] Absolutely nothing.
We can program our understanding,
we can make a contribution.
But we can not guarantee.
Because the word being sure, for me,
entails a guarantee of some kind.
If I do this, Then this will happen.
It's kind of strong.
Of course, as researchers.
We always like to believe
that we will change the world
by the time we've
published the first paper.
And I sense that in your
Introducing in the introduction.
People have not done this but
here I am, I'm going to do this.
[SOUND] Easy,
you may not be able to fix it that fast.
So check with your chair to consider how
you could questions.
All the relevant discussions,
nothing is out of place,
to see how you could soften
up your tone a little bit.
So that when people read your work they
don't go, yeah, who does he think he is.
We don't want that happen, right?
[LAUGH] And then I argue that
every scholar that you cited,
every scholar, every [INAUDIBLE] who
has done some work in the FC and
beyond, has made some
kind of contribution.
To our collective understanding of the
problem and ways to tackle the problem.
So here I'm suggesting that you
acknowledge the contribution.
Instead of positioning the work
as failing to do certain things.
Because these are the same
score as when you are ready
to publish your dissertation.
These are the same score as who
would be reviewing your work.
So it's a vicious circle.
If they're reading your work to try
to get into a journal of some kind.
And you have discredited
what they have contributed.
Mm-hm.
>> Because
academically
>> Right.
>> challenging
situation.
>> Mm-hm.
>> But besides
in reality.
>> Right.
>> Everything we do contributes something.
>> Mm-hm absolutely.
>> The fact that we have a new idea
does not
mean that our idea is the absolute best.
>> Mm-hm.
>> Does that make sense?
>> Yes.
>> It's just another
piece.
>> Piece.
You're right.
Right. Right. >> Am I making sense at all?
>> Yes, absolutely.
Yep.
>> Then, number 3.
I was so
looking forward to the conclusion.
There are two specifically
special pieces for
me, the introduction,
yhe methodology and the conclusion.
Because I always see the conclusion
as an opportunity to bring your voice
out to there.
It's Congolese national, native native.
>> Right.
>> A Congolese native who actually
>> has a sense of compassion for
the lives of the people
who are still there.
Who's doing this work not
to just get a degree but
to meaningfully contribute
>> Betterment of the people.
Both tribes and all those who
are not set classified and so forth.
I was hoping to get a more
reflective conclusion.
Instead of the just almost bulleted point
summary of what you have already shared.
Even things that I did not get me to see
the future that you are envisioning.
There are not many Congolese who will be
earning a PhD in conflict analysis and
resolution, I assume.
So that which means many people,
many organizations.
We depend on this work, to look into
it to say, I think this should be done.
This could be tried,
let's keep moving forward.
So in my humble opinion,
I would like you to enhance,
strengthen your conclusion.
To have your voice be more heard,
be a little bit more reflective,
and bring your heart out of it.
After all, this is Conflict Analysis and
Resolution.
Where we operate from the mind and
the heart, at the same time,
as somebody who cares for the people.
>> Good, that makes sense.
>> Does that make sense?
>> Yep, absolutely.
>> Good.
Mm-hm.
>> Then finally,
then I promise I keep quiet.
Finally, you know some
things I shared with you
when you defended your proposal?
>> Mm-hm.
>> I started by disclosing that
[INAUDIBLE] English major.
>> Yes, I do, you remember that?
>> Yes.
I remember that.
>> I got a still an English Major.
>> Another reference,
I'll come to you?
>> I am an English major so
sentences have to make sense.
Where you place semicolons and
commas and all those things,
what we call grammar and
mechanical little things.
When people read your work,
people read you work,
by the way, because it's so good.
It's timely, it's very good work,
people will read your work.
You don't want anyone to stop reading or
to question your credibility,
because of a few little problems in here.
>> Yeah.
>> So there are significant really,
I'm not using that word lightly,
there are significant and
recurring grammatical errors
>> They're occasionally
interfere with the meaning of what
you are trying to communicate.
That's where the problems-
>> Yep.
>> Become serious when you're reading
a sentence, and say,
what on earth is he trying to say.
>> Say, right.
>> Then you have to stop and wonder.
Then you know is it right,
as a scholar you have a problem.
So I'm suggesting you are,
please to proofread carefully,
I've seen people hiring editors,
proofreaders.
This is important, this is a dissertation,
so it really has to be sterile.
There will always be a new thing or
two out there, but
not as encouraged.
>> May I ask you a question?
Did you read the latest.
What was the latest?
>> Yeah,
>> Yes, this is
the revised one.
>> Okay.
>> That I
printed.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, this is the revised one.
So as I shared that I do
really like the introduction.
>> Right.
>> Because actually it's introduction-
>> Mm-hm.
>> You're introducing your work to
the world.
>> Mm-hm.
I spent even more time.
>> Maybe you did.
>> So all the little yellow things
indicate places where I had trouble.
But as I noticed I can
tell the the chapters that
should proofread.
>> Mm-hm.
>> In the methodology, the data analysis.
[LAUGH] this is not the same version.
>> Right,
it's changed, it's changed, yes.
>> Yeah,
I could tell
>> Yep.
>> Because I have fewer issues in
the middle, then at the beginning.
All right, please proofread, because
this is about your academic reputation.
It's about George Mason University's
education, in terms of how
we write and how we publish things.
>> Absolutely.
So doing so,
we verified the quality of your work.
So we leave you a bit of this and again,
I really thank you-
>> Thank you.
>> For this important work and for
allowing me the opportunity
to be a part of your team.
>> Absolutely, thank you so much as well.
Thank you, it's always wonderful
to have you on the talk with us,
cuz your different perspective-
>> Absolutely.
>> [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGH] [INAUDIBLE]
>> Right, but I also really thank you for
those comments, and
particularly if I can address
what the issue you mentioned
about the failure,
this is one of the things.
And you were absolutely right.
In terms of, even in my own work,
I always tell one of my analyst,
who is here can tell you,
when you say failure,
different people have got different
understanding of the issue.
And so, yes, that's I think that
will rectify that, so we can.
It's not about failure, but
about this issue of continuation.
Yes, they have tried, but
if you say it's a total failure,
they have tried something, maybe these are
the kind of improvement that needed right,
say complete failure.
So I think it's good suggestion and
I will follow it.
And given the acknowledgement of the work,
I don't know if it came across again,
then maybe did language issue,
but my intention wasn't to
discredit the work of others.
I would even love to support and
follow-through what they have done,
because again, no one is gonna
carry out a research and so,
that it doesn't make any sense.
But as scholars we have to bring more and
try to bridge the gaps better.
You cannot discredit-
>> We're
building-
>> Right.
Other people's work all the time,
that's how he keeps going.
>> So with no intention whatsoever.
>> I know there was.
I had to show that I read.
>> Right.
[LAUGH] Absolutely.
Yeah, and for
conclusion I appreciate that.
I think Karina even mentioned that
was during when I was writing
my conclusion chapter was, it's not
just about enumerating what you did or
what you covered, again,
bringing my own voice,
what I tried to avoid from the beginning,
let me just try to give
the stories of the participants.
But again, it makes sense especially if
there was a place where I could bring my
recommendations and and say, hey, there's
this scholar now after reading all these,
after discovering A, B, C, D, again, maybe
this is what for my own personal now,
it would be opinion of analyzing with
confident and providing my own assessment.
So that is very well taken.
>> This is an appropriate place for
also to once again acknowledge
the suffering of the people.
The suffering that's motivating this work,
that makes this work extremely important.
Right, right.
>> The heart comes in.
>> Good, good, good, thank you for this.
Appreciate it.
>> Thank you very much better.
>> It's always great having you here as
inspiration, obviously,
to the candidate but
I think the lesson should not be lost
on people who are sitting here as well.
So listen up.
>> [LAUGH]
>> So I share a lot of the sentiments and
opinions that you conveyed.
So clearly, this is a successful work, and
I'm particularly impressed, obviously,
the case study, which let me confess,
shocking.
>> [LAUGH]
>> I don't know the details of this case
study, I confess.
>> Mm-hm.
But the focus on emotion
is particularly valuable,
and there's an enormous surge
of research as you know
of framing the conflict in
terms of competing emotions,
and this is certainly within
that important movement.
And the logic of
the primary [INAUDIBLE] so
I wanna ask you just some questions.
>> Mm-hm.
>> As you consider your work to move
forward in a published forum.
>> Right.
>> And I like what you were saying about,
it's a delicate balance.
I have to say, some fields find
that as kind of normal lunchtime,
is to criticize the past writers.
>> Right, right.
>> And yet,
the dangers that you point out
are really quite significant.
And also, it's not an either/or
critique of the previous authors,
and I thought that was particularly
clear in the fact that
you're really, so
I wasn't quite sure, and I'm gonna
ask you a specific question about that.
>> Mm-hm.
>> You're critiquing the contact
theorists, but
then developing your own model.
>> Mm-hm.
>> So there's kind of like a little kind
of dance that you're taking here.
It's not a fatal flaw critique.
>> Right,
right.
>> I mean, I could imagine one saying that
we accept the assumptions of contact
theory and yet, give more specificity and
context to it in this particular case.
>> Right.
>> So what I'm suggesting is that
the framing of your opinion
about the advocates for
contact theory could be a little softer,
given the fact that
you're advancing a contact model.
>> Right.
>> Yeah.
>> Fairly enough.
>> So it's just a matter of
framing.
>> Right.
>> And in that regard to, do you-
>> I agree.
>> Okay.
>> I agree,
and if I can point out
one thing about that is.
Yes, again in the sense,
I think you are right because what
I was trying to do is not say that,
hey, contact does not work at all
>> Yeah.
>> So it is looking at the specificity of
the situation in Overa and acknowledge.
And especially,
if you look at the work by a peer group,
they've conducted a metadata
analysis of 515 cases,
and in total both published and
unpublished work.
And they've concluded that, yes,
contact does actually work in some places.
And I do believe in that as well.
But my concern was that, in other cases,
especially, cases that look similar to
this one of Overa, we would have to
complement contact with other things.
>> Yeah,
right.
>> It is not just a contact itself, but
because again, of the issues that
could be in that particular area,
especially for the Overa case,
people come there and say,
we are very likely to sit down and
discuss and address our issues.
And they believe that just contact itself
can address that particular issue.
And if you could look at
how poor the phrase is,
when he began at this model,
when he developed the contact hypothesis,
your original thinking was not
even looking at violent conflict.
And it was looking at what was happening
in the United States during say,
by the era of segregation in 1950.
And then researchers elsewhere became very
interested in the motif and said, wow,
well, it's about segregation, but
possibly we can look at this as well
in other areas where conflict has been in
places where violence is taking place.
And some cases that have been developed
to some researchers have found that
even in invalid conflict,
yes, contact can still work.
But for me, the case I was making is
to link then in the case of Overa,
it's a pleasant way to start
a conversation but not the last stop.
So that's what my case is like, yes,
contact is a good thing to do but
it has to make sense.
It has, and we have to make more sense
in a sense if we have, and the notion,
that's why in my model you could
see that there is all this called
the positive contact and negative contact.
People can engage in contact and
they think it's gonna
address all their problem.
But what type of contact
are you engaged in?
If it's negative,
then you're gonna expect some kind of
negative outcomes in terms
of facilitating coexistence.
Well, your point is well-taken.
I think that should be, well,
maybe reframed in a sense that you say,
yes, it works but I'm just specifically
talking about how it's not working for
this case because of A, B, C, D, right.
>> So
can I ask just a small
question about the model,
that in addition to the positive negative.
>> Mm-hm.
>> I didn't quite understand the vertical
distinction between negative contact and
negative factors of contact.
I didn't quite get that.
Yeah, you have carriers.
>> Negative-
>> Yeah, what's the difference there?
>> Negative factors and negative contact.
So what I'm saying,
if you look at the factors
that are enumerating here,
so absence of trust,
impermeable boundaries,
and to stereotype others.
So when these vectors
are present that they
could contribute it to the negative.
>> I see.
>> Right, so if these are present then
they contribute to this type of
contact which could be superficial.
The superficial contact is a result
of already this absence of trust,
the impermeable boundaries,
and there's these stereotypes.
>> Like preconditions.
>> Right, so if these are present,
expect to see this kind of contact.
>> Okay.
>> Right.
>> Okay, so let me move onto another one.
I thought the data that you provided,
I mean,
yours seemed so perfectly ready for
a narrative analysis,
where of course,
the thematic analysis you provided, but
thematic obviously, can be
formulated in a really riveting way,
riveting formulation
by dominant narrative,
secondary narrative, relationship between,
because people are their stories.
>> Mm-hm.
>> Identity is our story about us and
them.
>> Mm-hm.
>> And then how the stories basically
become complex or not.
>> Right.
>> The ideology is obviously, not complex.
So I'm thinking in the future,
it might be helpful to-
>> To do a narrative.
>> Add to your thematic analysis a clear
articulation of the particular narratives.
In other words,
you already provided the meaning for
what I'm imagining as narratives, as it
were the substance of the narratives.
And then I think it would be helpful
just to formulate that much more
explicitly.
>> Mm-hm.
>> And again, because identities are so
wrapped up with the discursive
form it would just fit
into that perspective.
>> Good,
good.
>> I'm gonna ask you a question that is
really tricky for Analysts and there's no
I want to see, I want to be ready for this
for your, again, for your future work.
>> Right.
>> The distinction between the groups,
there is intermarriage.
>> There isn't.
There's no inter marriage?
>> No, that's the problem that we say,
they there's no inter marriage.
>> Okay.
Is the distinction absolutely
clear that where the self
identity matches perfectly with the other
identification of themselves
>> In terms of the physic
>> So what I'm asking,
and I know this in other cases.
That people self identify
as being part of one group.
>> Right, right.
>> But then others identify them as being
a part of another group.
Or even a mixture.
>> Right, right, right.
>> And the mix, actually part of
motivation, my question is the model which
you didn't have time for at the end which
I think is your model of the combined-
>> The combined identity,
yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I can show you,
I put it down here because of the time.
I see what you mean here.
>> Yeah, so
my question is this.
>> This one?
>> Yes.
>> So are the identities,
the self identity this matching
perfectly with what others
perceive of the self?
>> Right, well it depends again and
in the case there,
the difference can be seen a sense of, and
one way to address the question asked,
there are different
perceptions into what identity is.
>> Right.
>> So in the question of let's say for
Banyamulenge, who have been
portrayed as foreigners-
>> Right.
>> The area [INAUDIBLE] they came from
Rwanda.
>> Okay.
>> They migrated to the deer.
They should have been there for
more than 100 years, they claim.
>> Okay.
>> But they, themselves,
consider as Congolese.
If you ask them right now, who are you,
they will say that they're Congolese.
And, to your point then, the others,
the [INAUDIBLE] said no, no, no, no.
You can't claim the Congolese citizenship.
You came from Rwanda.
And so the distinction is that the
Banyamulenge will claim themselves that
they're Congolese like everybody else,
like every other tribe.
But the neighbors then say you know what?
Fine, we don't care whether the Congolese
nation gave you citizenship by law.
But we just continue to
treat you as foreigners.
>> Okay, so it's the substance.
>> So it's the-
>> It's the issue of legitimacy.
>> Right, the issue of legitimacy.
So that's why.
So the issue becomes
the issue of legitimacy.
Is they don't accept whether they were
granted citizenship by the country.
They never said, you know what,
we know when you came here you came
like a foreigner and
you are still a foreign too now.
And that's the distinction.
So it's this clash of understanding
if the group is legitimate or not.
And until that is the other
group acknowledged that yes,
these people have been
granted citizenship.
They can also be part of
a whole community, but
then we'll continue to have that problem-
>> Okay, very good, thank you,
thank you for that.
Just, and the last question is,
I like your phrase.
Really, we are, I mean we really
are doing this from our heart.
Some of us think it's
better to hide our heart
>> [LAUGH]
>> But ultimately it doesn't really,
>> Right.
>> It kind of loses,
especially when you're talking identity
issues, I mean there's a lot of
work in identity theory,
that where the heart doesn't come through.
And I think that you would
be very well served to
really explore pro kinda
your sentiments about this.
Now in relation to that,
you focused understandably on Empathy.
Well, there's a few
other positive emotions.
>> And these other positive emotions of
compassion, sympathy are so interrelated-
>> Right.
>> And sometimes someone experiences
empathy along with compassion,
sometimes maybe not.
But they're really close to
someone's core sets himself,
because it's all relational.
>> Right.
>> Sense of self is always relational and
it's always more moralistic.
>> Right, right.
>> And so in your future work,
I would suggest that you broaden out,
branch out basically pro if you can,
I don't know if you want to get more data.
Might be, I'm sure it was fun
>> Narrative, yeah.
>> The first time around, maybe second,
whatever.
But to really broaden
out into an attention
to a wider range of moral emotions in
addition to empathy.
>> Fred?
>> That's it.
>> Good, good, Thank you, thank you.
I don't want to take,
we had so many conversations.
I think one field which you
put in your dissertation but
didn't really shine well through your
presentation, even through the model.
And we discuss that you
have to stop at one point.
But for future research, and
I want to know your opinion about,
it's about the importance of the boundary,
right, and
these five mechanisms.
>> Right.
>> Because these particular five
mechanisms can be [INAUDIBLE] developed.
And you show them, but they actually
can be [INAUDIBLE] which help it to
move from one side of your model
to another side of your model.
>> Right.
>> Right?
>> So my question is how you see them
central for what you're doing?
And also do you feel that based
on your research, in the future,
you can even come with more mechanisms.
Not only the five that gave us.
>> Right.
>> Something was doing his research-
>> Research, right.
>> And analysis of European conscious,
Spain and France, Germany and France,
how research in African continents,
they surely can enlarge?
Actually this is a very important
political ideas about the boundaries.
How you research can in
the future help us to understand
boundary change.
>> Right,
I think you're absolutely right with that.
And again, the even, the sum of,
I would say the five
mechanism makes sense.
But again in terms of scholarship,
we should maybe look at other avenues,
like you were saying.
What does make sense to specifically
looking into the African concept and
context.
Maybe for future research, yes,
I think you're absolutely right.
I could look at some specificity,
what really did not cover or
maybe this kind of thing that made sense.
But the conflict that he was looking at.
And if he had to look at the situation
like the one I investigated,
maybe he could come up with more.
So as a researcher, yes.
I could look at those kind of things and
figure out looking at the literature.
And also the dynamics of conflict, and
maybe you suggest some of those mechanisms
that could precipitate a boundary change.
>> Yeah,
because what we see in
the world of literature,
You treated your contract and
what you show.
There are more emerging
literature on all the different
negative contexts,
how we compare them, how
they exist in different spatial, right?
>> Mm-hm.
>> Spatial situation and so on.
But this, what you really brought,
I think one of the really
development which you brought in your
dissertation is putting together this
idea of legitimacy and wonder and content.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
right.
>> These free views which ideally
interesting to fulfill for
them come for, again, it's probably
going outside of the boundary,
[LAUGH] of your dissertation research.
But I did see a lot of possibilities
with future development between these
three major conceptual inbox or whatever.
>> Mm-hm,
makes sense.
>> And particularly,
since most of them tend to be originating
out of the African continent.
>> African continent, right.
Yeah, I think-
>> So people always bring those questions,
so okay, yeah.
>> Does it make sense, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Right.
>> It makes sense for the African context.
>> Right, right.
>> How can we expand on them to make them
more culturally relevant-
>> Relevant today, yep.
>> Context,
relevant to where the work is being done.
>> Mm-hm.
>> And that's something that I would like
to see in your conclusion,
at least a good paragraph on that.
>> Okay.
>> Cuz you have to demonstrate awareness.
>> Mm-hm, mm-hm.
>> You can't just transpose models and
then frameworks, and because you're
going to school here and say,
now, this is my third base on this.
You have to kind of show us that you can
contextualize what you have learned,
instead of just transposing what you
have learned to a different context.
>> Absolutely, mm-hm, thank you.
>> Okay, we can have maybe one or
two questions from the room.
>> Hold on.
>> Sure.
>> Let me demonstrate my area of weakness.
>> Mm-hm.
>> Okay.
>> You did your interviews by phone and
Skype.
>> From Skype, right.
>> And then I missed something because you
did those, and
then you translated them, and so forth.
How did you record them?
>> I didn't record it.
To record it,
you mean in terms of recording
the interviews?
>> Yes.
>> No.
>> Did you record them when you were-
>> No, I didn't record the interviews,
I was transcribing them by taking notes.
>> So
you were translating-
>> Translating, yes.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
analysis.
He didn't have [INAUDIBLE]
we'll have several students who
[INAUDIBLE] right now.
In this country,
people don't want to be recorded, right?
>> Yeah, yeah, so
you would-
>> So transcribe it by taking note of what
the participants were saying.
>> Okay, in French.
>> In French and then you translate it-
>> Okay, so your notes are in French and
then you went back to then
translated them into English for
the purpose of the data analysis.
>> Right, for data analysis, yeah.
>> All right, good.
>> Good, good,
yes, did you have a question?
Okay.
>> Can I ask a question?
>> Yes, please, sure.
>> Okay, so for your country,
were there any attempts or
solutions to that kind of conflict, and
if yes, are you willing to work on them,
improve them, or are we going
to come up with the new ideas?
>> Yes, it's a good question.
So again, this is one of
the questions that that I think,
I need to bring my voice as well to that.
Yes, I think in terms of resolution,
this country, I was talking to Vinni.
It has been ignored a lot, in a sense,
I don't know if it's for political reason,
but when it comes to resolution of
this conflict, there isn't any easy
answer that I can say if you do A,
B, C, D, you're gonna finish it.
But we can try, we can try.
And that's why this model is so
important here.
It is my perception, if you ask me today,
one of the major concerns
about this conflict is first,
this issue of the citizenship,
of the acceptance of other people.
The Banyamulenges as I explained, these
people they came to the DRC as foreigners,
as refugees, and
they find the DRC as their home.
They call it home today,
but because of that, and
there's a lot of history in there,
some of the people, the indigenous people
who work on them in the countryside,
et al, these people are foreigners,
they came here, but at the same time,
they started to participate in politics,
and trying to grab a power by force.
And one of the issue is during the wars,
the Banyamulenge,
one of the entities that supported
the Rwanda invasion of the Congo.
And that factor itself,
put them in a situation
where it's allowed the other folks,
the indigenous people,
to say, we've been telling
you from the very beginning.
These people are runners,
they're supporting their friends.
They are supporting their neighbors, or
they're supporting their brothers and
sisters.
So with that, this issue of nationality,
first, is to be addressed.
And my personal opinion, and
if I can give it to you,
this link of government intervention
is problematic in one way or
another is that, if the government
could assert its position and
say, okay, the use of Banyamulenge will be
resolved with a constitutional treaty or
a constitutional where they can take
some legislation and pass it so
that people could at least acknowledge
that this is not an issue.
The issue could be still remaining local,
but
the government can play a role if
they want to address the conflict.
So my sense was like, this lack of
government intervention as well,
continues to be problematic on both side.
But it's not just only the government,
but on the other side,
peacebuilders also have to look at what
really the problems that are going on.
We have failed to identify the concerns,
the major problems.
They are looking at other issues
that might not be necessary, but
this issue,
especially the issue of citizenship.
It's easy,
people move from borders to borders.
We have seen that, and
I'm originally from the Congo.
I've lived in Burundi for
years, I traveled to Zimbabwe.
When I live in those countries,
sometimes I considered myself
to be part of the society.
And this is what
the Banyamulenge are facing.
They have come to the Congo for
many years, but until now,
their status is in limbo.
They don't know if they are Rwandans or
if they're Congolese.
And that sometimes is upset them to
the point that they've used even violence
to try and claim their citizenship.
And so if this issue of
citizenship is not addressed,
I think it's a most important issue
that should be addressed first.
And the other things can come after, but
if they don't see that people
around them accepted them,
or consider them as legitimate member
of society It's gonna be from,
that's why we address the.
And like I said, in reason a,
things that we can.
If we just knew this,
everything will be fine.
There are a lot of things
out there that could be.
But the nationality issue
could be the first step.
Where if there's acceptance
then that's where you will see.
Even in the model, if there is
this sense of acceptance people,
even when we talk about contact.
They say, why do we have to talk
to these foreigners anyway?
Where are we gonna get With it.
>> Right.
[LAUGH] Right, because.
We gonna take with these
foreigners anyway.
So until you get to that point where
there is this mutual acceptance.
Yhere will be really some
kind of bumps in the road.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Right, you're welcome.
Yes?
You use the theory.
The conflict in the animals
>> Right.
>> But I'm also wondering if you looked
into social tension netween that regions.
Specially what's happening in
the tension we're having in.
And that effecting both the contact but
also
the narrative Epeach of those communities.
>> Mm-hm, mm-hm.
Yeah, yeah so the contact and
empathy will model
constant with just a way to try and
understand the role.
That these two play in terms
of facilitating coexsistance.
But among the other province with
politics politics was raised.
And I'm saying, especially,
you know if you can see the part of the.
You know, after the wars,
they dominated the area.
And ended the so-called, the indigenous.
Part of that, in a way,
we are actually the true Congolese.
That's how they call, and
then we're being dominated by foreigners.
And so
the issue of politics become a prime.
Because after the war then the
Banyamulenge started to occupy the high
positions either at national level or
Local.
And the fact, just to say, they took guns.
To get access to power
they had to use guns.
To say, okay, you people don't
want to recognize us as Congolese.
If we get guns and
maybe you will start to respect us.
So that's one of the problem.
Yes, politics is part of the equation
nut at this point because
the have succeeded to be
in the political arena.
And now they're ministers in or
at the local level.
They have high positions as
the district to [INAUDIBLE] live.
Actually they're not
complaining about that.
They are complaining in terms of politics.
They also want to have this kind of, you
know, in the DRC each tribe has a chief.
Each tribe has, you know,
it controls its own territory.
And in because they have been seen
as foreigners, they don't have that.
So they are trying to most of the time
claim okay we are also part of Congo.
Why can't we also have our own
chief like any other tribe.
And so
that's where the politics come into play.
There is it's yes they are they
have all of these high physicians.
That they are not yet satisfied
until they have their own Lacolin.
So we are part of Mulenge.
We needed to have a Mulembe Chief.
So those kind of things.
But yes, I would say, politics is in play.
And it the dissertation, you could say,
I discussed about that.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> Thank you.
Jen Ally,
I'm from the National University.
And thank you very much for your
presentation, it was very informative.
I'm very interested in what you've found.
Of anything concerning
the direct correlation between
the national narrative for
conflict and the grassroots narrative.
In my studies, I found that that's
very difficult to disassociate.
And I wonder if you saw any indications of
an ebb and flow on the cycle of conflict.
Concerning the ebb and
flow of the conflict in the region
over all.
>> Yes.
Exactly, there are those
kinds of dimensions as well.
At the national level the conflict
is fueled by the politicians.
They have representatives,
local representatives.
Who are when they need votes.
They call people and
say hey do you remember following us?
So, they use that as a mechanism
to get the vote and they fuel it.
They actually remind people that,
hey, these people are foreigners.
Let's fight them.
And so
when the people who have that mindset,
they say, yeah, we forgot about that.
And so the national level has been seen,
and this is the difference, what I say.
The difference between the acceptance of
the Bayamulenge as citizen of the Congo.
Nut at the local level also
because there is a dispute.
They are disputing
a territory called mulenge.
That's one, has been ignored a lot,
especially by most scholars.
It's most of the people look at, okay,
it's the State that have
to give them a nationality.
Okay, fine,
the State can give them citizen ship,
if the local people don't care,
it's not going to happen.
And that's one of the concept where,
locally people just say, yeah,
you know what?
We don't care,
to have a Congolese passport.
By the way, this is our territory.
When you came here you invaded it.
You're here as an occupier.
We let you use this land,
but it's not yours.
And so
the dynamics national is very important.
And as I develop,
look into the future but this work.
These are the kind of things
that I will continue to explore.
Because it was one of
the findings that were important,
is the difference between
national versus local.
The difference between
times of relative peace.
Where there isn't a regional
conflict narrative that's
being fueled by whatever
the event of the day is.
That if in those relative peace,
at the same survey which is why I
find your methodology interesting.
The same survey revealed different results
because there's not a national narrative
driving the local reaction at that time.
>> There
could be some of this, during
>> I will say at the peacetime,
sometimes you could say in the Uvira area.
It's peacetime people change and
there could be some kind of increase
in contact between these.
But the problem is that due to
the history of the country
>> They've
passed this notion to
generation to generation.
It's kind of educating
these kids are born today.
They didn't know if
the Banyamulenge were foreigners.
But the indigenous trouble
continue to raise these issue.
This concern that somehow this is what is
happening.
>> Okay.
>> Remember,
these people came from somewhere.
But you're right, it's a time of peace.
And you could probably,
we could see differently, is that
only in terms of increase in contact.
But there is that change in dramatic
lean in change, given the history.
And the mistrust and the disdain and
the dynamics of the conflict.
They would still just show
this kind of what they said.
The irony of okay, thank you.
>> So you're right.
There will be time where it's,
during the time,
basically tend to be socializing more.
And then when there's an explosion out
there, the separation becomes wider.
Yes, yeah?
>> Analie,
you wanna say something.
>> [LAUGH]
>> I wasn't-
>> On different subjects,
it has to do something with and.
I'm trying to reinforce
your case about the.
And calling the then some people
calling other foreigners.
But you forgot what are the Banyamulenge
calling the Congolese bichuchu,
these stupid names.
So there'd be some sort of back and forth.
And then calling other foreigners and
the other are bichuchu.
>> The ateelas or whatever, yeah.
>> And also of that to respond to your
comment about the third
national versus local.
And at times, there isn't anything that's
between the national narrative and
the local narrative.
There is a well-known
politician who is in Kinjassa.
Who took really some time
to document the torture.
And the crisis shown [INAUDIBLE] how
bad they are [INAUDIBLE] in there.
All are prevalent, they don't
represent 10% of the population.
But they get 50% of the ability
board positions in [INAUDIBLE].
Meaning that that's taught and
that's people that are really
[INAUDIBLE] end of the [INAUDIBLE].
You are [INAUDIBLE] maybe hospitable.
And then he actually took that
against us and [INAUDIBLE].
And it's fallen into come into resentment,
the Banyamulenge.
And in sense I'm doing to Congo and
Uvira Rwanda.
And whenever I go out,
you go to restaurant.
You go to pub, you don't see
Banyamulenge drinking with Congolese.
[CROSSTALK]
>> They can go to church [LAUGH].
They don't drink [LAUGH].
>> Even the have their only,
we can anywhere in town.
So this shows that there is much
contact between [CROSSTALK]
>> Yeah, and that's really,
you just got to that point.
And that lack of quantity
is what's motivated by some
I divulge here is in a sense that okay.
There is distrust and
people don't trust one another.
And that's why if we just follow
the mode of contact for the DDRC case,
it's not gonna work.
People live in isolation and one of the
things they mentioned is as you can see.
And I'm sure you've been to.
They say, okay, we live here in the same
area, but everyone is their own corner.
So the Banyamulenge want
to live in a specific area,
the want to live in a specific area.
There are some places where these,
I'm not gonna mention.
But at the same time,
they cited an issue of isolation.
We talk, but at the same time, we retreat.
And with that lack of trust,
it is with some hesitation if I go to him.
How is he gonna feel?
How is he gonna react?
I know those kind of dynamics.
>> This [INAUDIBLE] is bringing us back to
the centrality of the boundary, right?
Status.
I was really surprised why contact.
>> Okay, good.
>> So it's very interesting.
