Episode 07 | Rethinking History with Prof. Korostelina: Identity, Reconciliation and the Power of Memory in Peacebuilding

Jul 11
26 min read

Updated: Aug 2

Click the arrow (›) below to expand or collapse the transcript.

TRANSCRIPT

Stella Micheong Cheong 00:16

Hello listeners and welcome to the Conversations4Citizenship podcast. I'm your host, Stella Micheong Cheong from Yonsei University. When you see the headlines from Gaza or the relentless war in Ukraine, it's easy to feel hopeless. These cycles of violence feel unbreakable, rooted in so much pain. It raises a huge question. How can we ever find a lasting peace? But what if a key part of the answer isn't just about treaties, but about something more fundamental. Memory? What if the real battle for peace is fought in the stories we tell, the monuments we build and the histories we choose to preserve. To explore this, we are joined by one of the world's leading experts on this very topic. Dr Karina Korostelina is a professor and the Director of the Sustainable Peace Lab at George Mason University's Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution. As a social psychologist, she’s worked on the ground in conflict zone across the globe from Serbia to Lebanon, helping organizations like the World Bank, understand how our collective memories can either fuel hatred or foster reconciliation. Her new book, Memory Site and Conflict Dynamics, is the reason we invited her today. It brilliantly explains how physical places, memorials, museums, and sacred grounds can become battle grounds for the past, shaping the future of peace. Hi, Karina, it's a pleasure to have you with us. Yeah. It's already been a month since we met at the IARS Seoul Conference. So, thank you so much for making the time to join us. So, we are really excited to have this conversation with you. So, let's get started! Before we dive deep could you introduce yourself and what experiences or influences drew you to focus on conflict.

Karina Korostelina 02:44

Please, yes. Thank you very much. I'm a social psychologist, as you've told, and I'm originally from Crimea, Ukraine. It's currently occupied by Russia, and as a social psychologist, when I graduated from the school, I started exploring different types of perceptions, intergroup relations in Crimea. When the conflict start growing between minorities like Crimean, Tatars, Ukrainians, and Russians. And while I started collecting data, analyzing data, for example, I was awarded a grant from MacArthur Foundation to do this research. I realized that I need to do something about it. And I started being engaged. First in some peace building activities, and then I started leading projects. I was awarded projects from the European Council, from US, US Institute of Peace. I established the Crimean Institute of Peace at this time. So, I become more and more engaged seeing the needs of Crimea and society there to address conflicts. And I have some beliefs, deeply held beliefs that the conflict in Crimea didn't occur similarly to that which occurred in Chechnya or Moldova nearby, because we were deeply engaged. Because together with me, it was a group of people working on peace and reconciliation in Crimea. So, this was really inspiring for me. And then I moved to United States and continue now working globally on peace building.

Stella Micheong Cheong 04:30

Okay. Thank you so much, Karina. So, as you, as you are a social psychologist, you study how we form our identity as a part of a group. So, in a world that feels increasingly polarized, what is one piece of advice you can offer on how to maintain a strong sense of one's own identity without feeling negatively about someone from a different group?

Karina Korostelina 05:00

Stella, yeah. This is a very, very good question, because it's part of a lot of trainings or projects which I'm doing across the globe. Because people often didn't realize how their own social identity impacts their perception. I love this story which I always tell in this training. So, these conversations are about two fish, who are young fish swimming in the water. And then they swim for long time. One older fish comes and asks them, guys, how is the water? And they swim for an even longer time in complete silence and then they look at each other and ask, what is the water? Very similar, we people who live and behave and develop our perceptions, we live as part of an identity, but very rarely understand. Nietzsche, Philosopher Nietzsche said long ago, that if we ask people why they did something, they say oh, it comes from my heart. It comes from my beliefs. But how do the beliefs come into your heart in the very first place. Where do they come from? And people really understand that their values, beliefs, morals, perceptions, come from the group. So, understanding that it's a very first step in building peace or really overcoming polarization. Because it believes that only one way is right. If you believe that only one approach is just, if you believe that only one value is moral and others are not, then you would never build reconciliation and peace. And the most important thing is then you see threats from the other groups. And threat is always with the difference between fear and a threat. Fear is a danger, right? Is when something occurred to you but does not have intention. Threat is intention. So, then we believe that other groups have intention to destroy us. We need to act first. So, what’s happening if I'm member of my own group and I see a threat from other groups, I want more protection. I feel even more like a group member, because I pay with loyalty for protection. So, I think like a group member. My feelings become group feelings. My emotions become group emotions. And this becomes a vicious cycle where the more I feel threatened by the others, the more I feel like a group, and the more I feel like a group, the more I see threat. And breaking up the cycle, realizing that identity impacts how we see people, how we feel about them, how we feel insecure about them, then you break the cycle and realize that there are many other ways. There are a lot of cross cutting identities, common identities with others. This is the how we can approach polarization, because polarization doesn't come on itself. It's people who create polarization.

Stella Micheong Cheong 08:33

Okay, yeah. Thank you so much. And maybe this next question is related to collective identity. So, talk about the community reconciliation, because your research also examines community reconciliation in places that have experienced long-term violence. So, when we see devastating conflicts in the news, it's easy to feel hopeless, you know. So based on your extensive experience, what gives you the most hope for our collective ability to heal from conflict and build a sustainable peace?

Karina Korostelina 09:13

Guys, thank you. I do study resilience. For example, I did study resilience in Ukraine, in the midst of the conflict. And one of the key resilience practices is really volunteering. It's taking responsibility, personal responsibility, for building peace. And to take the responsibility for building peace also means you have to learn and believe in yourself. You have to learn what to do and how to do it, because we of course, know that to build peace, to bring hope in society, you need to work together. You need to work within your own group, with people. But you also need to work across groups. Collaborate with people across groups. Even just talk to people across groups. And you also have to work in vertical dimensions between government and people. You have, even in authoritarian societies, you have to find ways to bring change. And learning for me, it's the key. People who are open to learning, open to understanding how they can use the best practices, is very important. And one of my works recently was to update and upgrade the contact theory. This is a theory which shows how people work together across groups, across divides. And I have done a lot of research together with my team. We found the real repertoire of the most effective practices, how to make this contact better. And what I was really pleased to see across the globe in multiple countries, is that when we teach people to do it, they immediately apply it. The reaction of people is peace builders who want to learn and apply new, innovative ideas. I think this is what brings us hope, because we could not continue to do the same work again and again. We need a lot of creativity and learning in it.

Stella Micheong Cheong 11:21

All right, yeah, 100% agree. And then so let's move on to your new book. Titled, Memory Site and Conflict, Dynamic. I really enjoyed reading your book. So, it's my pleasure. For our global audience, could you, could you start by defining what a memory site is? Because I think that almost of our audience are not familiar with the term as they are not related to the field of peace or conflict. So, I think we would, we'd like to start with the concept of a memory site. So why do these physical places, for instance, statues or museums, the battlefield, become profoundly entangled in social and political conflict?

Karina Korostelina 12:14

Yes, thank you very much. This is what I found. Why, how this book came into place is exactly based on years of experience working in different places. And I had done a lot of research on history education. What I noticed constantly is that people engage in conflict around memory sites. For example, here in United States, there was a conflict in Charlottesville, around the monument for Civil War leader, which lead even to some deaths of people. So, what we found is that people take this particular memory site as representation, not only of the past, which is less important in my case. But the most important thing is something which posits the position of the groups in the current situation, but also even prescribes where we're going to the future. Memory sites are very powerful representations of the concept of what our nation is, or what our country is, what our regional place is, and it's very hard to fight with them. It's very easy to fight with narratives, right? You can say, no, I disagree with you, but it's much harder disagreed with the memory space. That's why they become much more profound in conflict dynamics.

Karina Korostelina 13:55

I mean, it's, for example, I wrote the chapter in this book about Nazi heritage and fascist heritage, specifically in Italy. And why were still in Rome, we saw a lot of monuments which have fascist symbols. We have Mussolini written on the monuments still there, and a lot of people trying to resist it. There are a lot of conflicts coming out of this, but still, there's a preservation of these monuments in Rome. And I don't know if listeners know when the excavation of ancient Rome started. This was actually Mussolini who started the excavation of ancient Rome, because for him, it was very important to elevate the identity of Italy. To show these deep roots in Ancient Rome and increase the self-esteem of Italian people especially in comparison with growing Nazi Germany. So, in this case, it was really impactful how you use even ancient Rome to bring it. Similar when you look at Athens right? The same way was used by Greek government for Greek people. It's very important to elevate Greek heritage to show connection to Europe as a foundation of Europe, rather than show connection to the Middle East or Turkey or something. So, this is really creating a strong boundary in stressing the independence of Greece from the Ottoman Empire. So just why? For example, if you go to Athens and you see Greek monuments, they are like standing alone in the hills. It was not always like this. They were occupied. There were buildings everywhere. But they clean it all to stress this idea of Greece as the cradle of European civilization. So, they can be extremely powerful.

Stella Micheong Cheong 16:11

Yeah, okay. Thank you so much. And maybe this is what you just talk about. This, the memory site is, for me, it's quite related to ideological construct that you argue. So, this sounds like a challenge to the common idea of a memory as a simple record of the past. So, Karina, could you explain what you mean by this, and how memory becomes a political tool used by groups to define who they are or who they are not.

Karina Korostelina 16:50

Yes. Thank you very much. Absolutely. If we are talking about intergroup relations, if we're talking about nation building processes, it's always very political. Political in the way, because identity and social boundary always define inclusion and exclusion. It's always patterns of power who has the ability to have control over the narrative of a country, and those who do not. Those who have rights and those who do not So, nations define minorities as a result of nation building process, right? Minorities didn't exist before nations. Very similarly, multiple groups can be denied access to resources, access to power, and we see it in many other places. So, memory sites and memory specifically. It's one of the key elements of nation building. It’s a key element of identity building, because it defines the major values. It defines where we come from. But for me, memory is not only about the past. It's really about the future, because memory defines the normative prescriptions: what we have to do, where are we going? What are our goals? Is what people remember from their history lessons is not probably names and not even dates. What they remember is who are our enemies, who threatens our lives, what they did to us and what we have to do about it. So, memory, it's really about a particular connotation, particular meaning of intergroup relations. So that's why it's political. Because it gives justifications for exclusion of particular people, discrimination, the silencing of the groups and the elevation of the other groups. It's justification of power.

Stella Micheong Cheong 19:01

Okay, yeah, all right. So, thank you so much for your response. And then I think it's the function of memory sites that you argue in your book is essential. So, let's talk about this key, the four key functions of memory sites. But given the time constraint, I just talk about the two functions of this memory site. One is the enhancing function and the other is the ascribing function. So, let's start with the enhancing function. The way memory sites can build a group's self-esteem, which is quite, which is quite important. However, we often see this in the form of the national monument that glorifies your nation's past. But at the same time, this kind of national monument enhances the national narrative, enhance the national, the unhealthy nationalism. So, when does this cross the line from healthy national pride into a dangerous conflict driving nationalistic life?

Karina Korostelina 20:22

Yes. Thank you very much. It's exactly you put it absolutely right. So, monuments can glorify the nations as this is the reason of it, right? People have to feel positive feelings about their nations, because if this is what we call monumental history. If something which is helping us to be proud of ourselves wanting to make us contribute to the nation, right? This is patriotism at a high level. But in many cases, what happens is developing this monumental history really leads to degradation of the other, or a presentation them in a negative way. Because in many ways, history is about the presentation of histories…from presentations of wars and of winning the war. For example, if you look in something which everyone now knows and travels around, Dubrovnik, right, Croatia? It's a UNESCO heritage site. And people look looking in it, sometimes from the perception, oh, it's a beautiful medieval town. But even in an application for UNESCO Croatia put Dubrovnik as the key for independence, for its fight with Serbia. And in the center of Dubrovnik, you see the museum which shows victims of the fighting with Serbia. And it's represented as more rightful, a more moral country in comparison with Serbia and its neighbors. So even like such a side, which is more medieval, is represented through this independence and put down of others, of other groups. And similarly, we see in Serbia, for example, in Kosovo, how multiple monuments are specifically used to diminish the legitimacy of the other group.

Stella Micheong Cheong 22:27

Okay, yeah. Really makes sense to me. Then, looking at, looking at the Israeli Palestinian conflict at the moment, I'm thinking of the ascribing function that you mentioned. About how the memory site represents the other seems particularly relevant in this Israeli, Palestinian, Palestinian conflict. So, so this, this, this conflict where sites like a Temple Mount or Al-Haram al-Sharif are so central. How do memory sites contribute to narratives that can erase the history of the other, deny their victimhood or even portray them as an eternal, monolithic threat.

Karina Korostelina 23:25

Yes, this is very important. This ascribing function was, for me, one of the most important ways to see how memory sites are used to portray the other, or demean the other, and raise it. For example, in the United States, if you looked for many monuments, the idea of representing Native Americans was to show them as somebody who’s submissive, who’s not developed well. Who have a lower level of culture in many monuments. They see it naked on their knees or something like this. So now there are a lot of movements to redefine these monuments, to remove these monuments and show instead of them as the victims who do not have any voice to show their agency. There are much more monuments now built in United States showing the bravery of Native American people, even their fight for their independence. Very similar with African Americans in United States. For a long time, they were just represented as the victims of slavery. But now I see more and more monuments coming up to show the agency, for example, the Underground Railroad. They were helping slaves to escape through the United States. So, this idea of giving voice, instead of representing people as victims. Or if you look in Mexico, it's also very interesting. Mexican national identity is perceived as a melting pot of local cultures and European cultures and so on. And they appropriate this idea of ancient civilization like Mayas and so on. And then you see ancient sites in Mexico. They talk about the past civilizations, but there is no word about current minorities living there. What they do about the position of Mayas, for example, in Mexico right now? It's like they do there. These are their history sites. They disappear. And now we're all Mexicans, so they completely silence voices of current native people in Mexico. And I was working with Batista, for example, in Chiapas, Mexico and their voice is completely erased from the historic representation of Mexico.

Stella Micheong Cheong 26:08

Yeah, thank you for informative explanation. And Karina, I know you, you've been collaborating with a range of international organizations, and I I believe these kind of organizations play a key role in resolving conflict. So, I'd like to hear more about your experience and the what the role, what is the role for international actors or local peace builders in guiding the creation of new memory sites in the post conflict society?

Karina Korostelina 26:51

Yeah, this is a very good question and very important question, because currently, what we see that this liberal, what we call concept of peace building really experiences a lot of crises. The idea that international organizations know how to build institutions, build democracy, build the election. So, this was the idea that if we come and build democracy and elections, everything will be fine. And they, for a long, long time, disregarded the deeper social psychological processes going between groups. They didn't see importance in them, or just was cherry picking some things to a fit liberal model. But we see now this crisis around the globe, which shows that this liberal model, model of institution building, an election building, doesn't work. We really need to address it in a deeper way. There is the local turn in peace building, which I'm also part of. And this local turn looking, for example, in indicators of local peace or looking into the dynamics of intergroup relations. This is specifically what I am looking at and really, unfortunately, international organizations rarely deal with memory or with identity. I just did analysis, together with a team of people from my university were working with Harvard University. We analyzed 15 peace processes and the role of international organizations in these peace processes, and what we found is that identity and memory was not even taken into consideration while people were designing the peace processes. So, we wrote a book last year which is called Identity and Religion in Peace Processes, showing how it's important to incorporate all these elements of understanding of how people think, how people interrelate, the inclusion of people dealing with threats, and dealing with boundaries. And I really hope that this will be new turn in peace building, and there we will be putting more attention on local dynamics.

Stella Micheong Cheong 29:14

Yeah, I do agree. And finally, Karina, your work is a profound reminder that history is not just in past, it is actively shaped in our present. I 100% agree with you and for the Global Citizen listening to the our podcast, what is the single most important lesson you hope they take away about their own role in shaping the memories of their communities, or what gives you hope that we can learn to remember together in in ways that build the most peaceful future?

Karina Korostelina 29:57

Yeah, this is a very good question. I think it's twofold. One, and I talk a lot about it in the book and in my work is that we really need to disrupt this mono narrative of conflict, these mono narratives or meta narratives of dominance. And there are a lot of examples of how people create the local monuments. Like in South Africa, they have a museum of the street of where the district, where they show interconnection between people and how marginalized, marginalization of particular groups. You see monuments coming in Slovenia, on the border with Italy, showing this representation of Slovenian culture. You see in Guatemala, multiple monuments about the human rights developed by local communities. These are disruptions of metanarratives and creating local initiatives. It's very important in peace building and showing alternative ways. But also, in returning back to your very first question, what to do? Is this really the idea of the organization? Understanding that there are multiple interpretations at the same time. History is not linear in the ways of how we interpret it, because there are multiple ways of how people look at it. For example, just to give a very quick example, there is rain, right? It's a fact. It's raining. But for some people, rain is so welcomed because they don't need to go out and what are their plans. And for other people, rain is so bad because they have to go to the party and they don't want to be wet, right? So, the same historic event can have multiple interpretations, multiple meanings for people, and acknowledgement that the same event can lead to very different outcomes for different groups. This is how we can deal with this monolithic memory, not accepting one or another. So, memory is not a zero-sum game, and people fight sometimes. People read because history is a belief. People fight for particular interpretations of history. And I think this is the way we have to really change the way to see history as multi-faceted and agonistic.

Stella Micheong Cheong 32:44

Yeah, I do agree the memory is not just one way. And thank you so much for your inspiring, informative presentation. I love the conversation with you, and it's a shame we don't have enough time.

Karina Korostelina 33:01

So many memories sites.

Stella Micheong Cheong 33:06

Now I'm gonna pass over my colleague, Dr Adam Lang.

Adam Lang 33:10

Thank you very much, Stella. And that's very, very interesting, Karina, in such a short space. I've not read your book, but it makes me think, you know, history is always written by the winners, isn't it sometimes but it gives quite a good way of some tools. if I may say, to actually give people like me that just visits historical sites, to give them a sense of critical thinking, to enable them to look at things slightly differently. I think it's very, very useful. And I was reflecting while you were speaking on some sites that I visited just recently, where the Battle of Hastings took place here in 1066, and also in Northern Ireland, where there is peace now. Where people still burn effigies of old kings and so on. And they will be doing that next week and marching. But still, by allowing the communities to engage and reflect, it has created a peaceful time for that country where many people didn't think it would ever be there. But I just wondered, we've been taken quite a bit of influence by somebody called Michael Apple the Struggle for Democracy and Education. I just wondered if you think that we're in a period of massive change at the moment, or whether what you're talking about has always been there the need to re look at things, or do we have further challenges on our hand with the geopolitical dynamics at the moment?

Karina Korostelina 34:39

Well, thank you very much for your question, and several things I would note here. Yes, we always think about history written by the winners, but I want to give you some alternative ways. History written by victims. And so, it's also happened since, when the people rewrite history, we have more ways of how people take this moral positioning of a victim, and they write history as a victim perpetrator and exclude perpetrators. While the whole conflict can be much more complex, because being a victim doesn't mean to be always innocent. So. it's happening in situations that had multiple ways of changing the cycle of perpetrated victims. But it's lead, for example, we know in Rwanda and after multiple genocides and killings. Now we know that there is a Tutsi in complete power, and Hutu are included excluded. But they could not complain about it, because you could not bring ethnicity as a genocidal ideology. So, there have been multiple ways. It's not always victors. There is this more complexity of victimhood as a zero-sum game. Similarly when people believe that their victimhood will remove victimhood of the other. And you spoke about Northern Ireland, and yes, it's, thank God the conflict is resolved. But memory sites are not neutral there. There is a lot of this conflict tourism, where on each sidewalk people from monuments showing that there is still the history of perpetration, what they did to us. So, these memorials are not neutral. They continued the representation of the other as a perpetrator. So, I think this idea that history is not only written by winners but also written by those who claim exclusive victimhood. This is also very important to understand in these dynamics, and I honestly don't believe on those who tell, oh, now we live in post it's a new era of post truth, or it's a new era. It's always been, if you read, like, if you are really a student of history. It's happened to nations, Greeks, and happened in ancient Rome, people will be fighting for you, for establishing status. Look, in Egypt, the whole pyramids come exactly as understanding the importance of memory sites right, in setting up the glory and power and legitimacy and shading voices. It's always work. It's just now we have multiple ways to deal with it like social media, representing, giving more voices for people, but also giving them more choice, and so choice leads to more polarization.

Kamille Beye 37:54

Thank you so much. It was really a great lecture and conversation, and I have a couple questions about memory sites, especially in the US in this heightened political era. And my first one comes in regards to the recent move that Donald Trump is making to revisit the history of slavery in the United States, saying that it's not as bad as it seems. And I just wanted to talk about what causes the false narrative in a political climate to exacerbate these feelings of intergroup and outgroup feelings towards monumental sites? And I want to, before I ask you to answer, I just wanted to extend on that, because in the United States, slavery is not taught the same way around the country to young people. So, people have very different ideas of what slavery looked like and what the impact was not on just black people, but other minorities in the country who come after, who benefited from the civil rights bills, amendment 13,14, and 15. So I wanted to ask you that first, and then I'll ask my next question.

Karina Korostelina 39:01

So, it's very interesting. And you asking this, but this struggle is not you following the previous question, right? The struggle of representing of slavery is not new. An example for you is the monument in the cemetery African American Cemetery in New York. Then they were building a GSE court building in New York they discovered that there were a lot of bones. Like it was a cemetery with specific artifacts related to the history of African Americans. And it was a huge fight with administration for long time to actually recognize it, acknowledge it, and put it in a way, right. And finally, decision was made, yes, we need to build memorial. Now you go there, you see very beautiful memorial which represents the contribution of African American people as slaves at this time, where the building in New York, acknowledges their presence there. There is a monument outside, and inside. But at the same time, there was a movement that came out of that. It's like you build monument, it's appropriation. We want to return bones back. And now they created the movement, and some bones were returned back to Africa. And there is a movement, celebration of heritage there. So, there is even like within African American community, right? There are different ways and arguments about how to represent this position. So it's been a long, long time, and I completely agree with you that every state have completely different ways dealing with this situation. And the same way we really need to be very, very cautious about how we interpret monuments, because a lot of monuments to Civil War were erected long after Civil War as a power statement to silence voices of African Americans. Silencing the voices of people who were fighting against slavery. So, it was not monuments to the past. They were really monuments as a political statement

Kamille Beye 41:37

Yes, but in the museum, if you take away what we already know were actual events or historical artifacts to represent a certain situation I think the idea of whitewashing history is also a challenge when you try, as you had said earlier, to eradicate people, eradicate events. And so, I think the idea of people in power having the political ability to narrate history and contradict events is somewhat challenging. Which brings me to this idea of memories as justification of power. And I wanted to ask you, how do we argue against these quote, unquote, alternative memories so we know that everyone has a different perspective of a historical event based on the position in which you come to the event from? However, there are certain facts, like in Germany, for example, they teach Nazism at every level according to the appropriateness for the child, but they don't erect monuments to Nazism in the country and in the US, for example, we do not teach about slavery universally, but we have lots of monuments to Confederate generals. We name things after them. And the understanding is, you know, the whole idea behind the war is to reduce or to end this thing on slavery. So, my question becomes, how do we argue against these alternative facts, when, or alternative memories? When, the alternative, as Stella said earlier, causes for this exacerbation of negativity in society?

Karina Korostelina 43:17

Yeah, this is very, very deep and very important question Absolutely, because if we advocate for organisms, we need to accept multiple interpretations. But how you decide which ones are diminishing and destroying and which ones are positive? So, I would clearly like to put the line here. Those alternative memories which completely diminish the other, silence the other, they're not alternative, right? They could not be considered alternative. Which means that we accept, we acknowledge our position, but we accept the position of the other. So those who which, as you say are quote alternative, but only say, this is the fact, and others are not fact they're not alternative. So, I think it's very clear to put the line between acceptance of multiplicity of interpretations and just again, this monumental one way only acceptance. There is a very good museum which I always present in, in Richmond. It's a private museum of the Civil War, which has one, for example, artifacts as a picture, and then gives the interpretation of the South, interpretation of the North. And this is a very interesting way of how you can see and you can decide for yourself. Similarly, it was a very good project, and I was working with this project in Israel, Palestine. They developed a textbook where on one side is an interpretation of history, or historical narratives of Israel, another historical narrative of Palestine, and in the middle is empty space where students can read both of them and then actually make their notes. And the first reaction of the students, was very negative. Look at how they do it. Look at that. It's all lies, right? This is the first reaction. So, it has required a lot of education of teachers and education of students to understand why they interpret things this way. Why their position is this way. So, after asking, going instead of completely denying, asking why. This is the way we should develop education and where education should be going. But unfortunately, this particular textbook was prohibited in Israel. After that, Palestine decided, Oh, if Israel prohibited it, we need to promote it. But after one year, they also canceled it. So, it's interesting the way it's still used. Actually, it's still used by history teachers here in Virginia, where I live, and I believe maybe even in Maryland and other places, to teach students about this conflict to show how people deal with that.

Kamille Beye 46:25

Okay. And then my last question goes back to the idea of the threats and fears arguments and this idea of belonging without othering. If you talk about this hyper polarized world that we live in today, and we have different conflicts around the world, how can we see people not as threats, but also not live in fear of them and do what you say about this idea of volunteering to build resilience. So how can we work towards goals like that?

Karina Korostelina 46:53

I would return back to education. I think education is the key. I have several books, because I do believe it's very important in history education and social identity, on the role of history education and reconciliation. And it's really teaching students. The European Union has done a lot of such really great work on how to teach students. Like you bring an example of Germany. Germany actually pioneered this idea of critical history. How to teach critical history was not always there. Right up to World War Two, they actually, if you look at it, they were teaching that. It was some, I'm joking. Of course, people from Planet Nazi came to Germany and then left, and Germany is a victim, right? So, they were not Nazi Europeans, but some, somebody else, right? And then with Germany, so and in Austria for a long, long time. They had very similar situations. So, they presented Austria as a victim of World War II. They exported Hitler, they imported Mozart, and told everyone that Germany was occupying Austria. They didn't even speak about Anschluss. It's just in the last 15 years they started slowly changing this education. But exactly how? Why did they start changing education. They started doing local research on the cemeteries. Who is killed there? What is happening there. So, I think this the same in Taiwan that was occupied for a long time by the Chinese government and people placed in exile, right? It's this time. This also developed the Taiwanese identity come from local research on who lives on our street. What food do they eat? So, this disrupting of this narrative from the foundations. That's why I'm still very, very optimistic about, as you ask about the current situation and Trump’s imposition of administration, impositions on history. There are so many local groups, people who already have so much experience interrupting these narratives, developing this local projects which grow exponentially, expanding into the nation, and disrupting this narrative.

Kamille Beye 49:35

Thank you so much. So. Dr Karina, we're coming to the end of our time together, so I want to say it was such a pleasure to hear about you and your research and the profound implications of the research on building peace, and I wanted to ask you if you have anything else that you want to leave us with today, Any pearls..

Karina Korostelina 49:52

I just believe that people, just those who believe that they can build peace, just go and do it!

Kamille Beye 50:03

Just like Nike. Just do it.

Karina Korostelina 50:06

Just do it! Exactly.

Kamille Beye 50:07

Thank you so much. So, I'm closing the episode. I'm Kamille Beye. Thank you for listening to Conversations4Citizenship. We hope you enjoyed this episode. Be sure to subscribe to Conversations 4Citizenship and look for us on X @c4c_ed and @c4cpodcast.bsky. social on Bluesky. A transcript of today's conversation with Professor Karina Korostelina, can be found at www. conversations4citizenship.com. This episode of Conversations4Citizenship was produced by me Kamille Beye, Stella Cheong, and Adam Lang, recorded in sound mixed by Stella Cheong. Many thanks and take care. Goodbye.

EPISODE SUMMARY

Join us for a deep dive into the politics of memory with Dr. Karina Korostelina, a leading social psychologist in peacebuilding. In this episode, prof. Korostelina reveals how 'memory sites' like statues and battlefields serve as powerful ideological constructs that define who belongs and who is excluded. Consequently, she critiques traditional international interventions, suggesting they often overlook these deep-seated identity dynamics. Instead, she champions an 'agonistic' approach to history, where diverse and even conflicting narratives are acknowledged rather than silenced. Finally, she highlights the critical role of education in transforming these divisive memories into bridges for reconciliation.

EPISODE NOTES

In this enlightening episode, Dr. Stella Micheong Cheong and her co-hosts welcome Dr. Karina Korostelina, Director of the Sustainable Peace Lab at George Mason University, to discuss the profound impact of collective memory on conflict and reconciliation. Korostelina argues that physical locations such as monuments and museums, are not merely static records of the past but active political tools that shape national identity and future conflict dynamics. She introduces concepts from her new book, Memory Sites and Conflict Dynamics, explaining how these sites often 'ascribe' negative traits to perceived enemies or 'enhance' a group's own narrative at the expense of others. Furthermore, the conversation challenges the traditional liberal peace model, advocating instead for a local turn that prioritizes community resilience and agonistic history—acknowledging multiple, coexisting interpretations of the same events. Ultimately, Dr. Korostelina emphasizes that education is key to disrupting monolithic narratives and fostering lasting peace.

This episode is hosted by Dr. Stella Micheong Cheong. Please subscribe to the podcast through Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music or Audible. You may also follow @c4cpodcast.bsky.social on Bluesky. We look forward to hearing your feedback. If you would like to explore participating in our podcast and submit your blog post to the C4C, do not hesitate to reach out through the online participation form or email us at conversations4citizenship@gmail.com

If you are curious about Memory Sites and Conflict Dynamics, check out her new book, 'Memory Sites and Conflict DynamicsCollective Memory, Identity, and Power' and visit the Sustainable Peace Lab's website linked below.