Dealing with the Past

The quality of the workshop on Dealing with the Past depends to a large extent on previous knowledge and awareness about its major topics: violence, understanding and analysing conflicts, prejudice and discrimination, identity and diversity. But it mostly depends on the motivation of the participants to engage in this topic – the greater the motivation, the deeper it is possible to delve into the topic. Another precondition for this topic is a formed group, that is, an atmosphere of basic mutual trust. There should also be confidence in the training team that they are capable of leading a process revolving around difficult topics. The greater this confidence, the easier it will be for participants to speak openly about issues on which opinions tend to differ drastically.

The objectives of the workshop may include: analysing the mechanisms for dealing with the past used in our societies; shedding light on what is denied in our societies and what is valued in relation to the wartime past; establishing constructive dialogue among people from different communities and thinking about approaches and activities that would lead to more constructive changes in society. A carefully prepared and managed workshop on this topic, in a group that has established basic mutual trust, invariably leads to awakening empathy and solidarity across borders and building trust among neighbours from different communities. People feel empowered when they manage to establish an atmosphere of respect and talk about topics they usually refrain from broaching for fear of offence, disrespect, pain, denial, rejection, humiliation and helplessness. From that perspective, social change appears much closer and more accessible.

Sometimes, you can devote two or three workshops at the training to dealing with the past. These are workshops with a lot of discussion and listening, because the exercises are mainly set up that way. You should bear in mind that it can be very tiring to carefully listen to some twenty people and participate in discussions all day. A change of tempo every now and then is very important for maintaining concentration and avoiding exhaustion. That is why this workshop, as well as those on Peacebuilding and Understanding and Analysing Conflict, often features a documentary film screening relevant to the topic of the workshop,* after which discussions and listening to others continue.

* This is usually a documentary from our production, specifically from the series Simulated Dialogue.

Workshop Example

Wall Newspaper: When I Hear “Dealing with the Past”, I Think of…

Duration: 10 minutes

Multicoloured Barometer about Dealing with the Past

Type of exercise: Multicoloured barometer

Duration: 45–60 minutes

Materials: Coloured paper, papers with statements prepared beforehand

Exercise description

A few sets of papers are prepared beforehand, each with a statement/sentence. The papers should be of different colours if possible. When the first set of papers is laid out on the floor, the participants decide which paper to approach. A few of the participants are asked to comment on why they have approached that particular statement. First those standing by one statement are called on, before moving on to the next statement. When the last statement in the set has been commented on, the next set of statements is laid out.

Sets of statements:

“I lived in the midst of the war”; “The war only touched me incidentally”; “The war did not directly affect my life”; “I watched the war on TV”.
“Dealing with the past should be a priority in our societies”; “Dealing with the past is something I don’t understand”; “Dealing with the past is important, but there are many more important things”; “Dealing with the past is a concept imposed by the West”; “Other”.
“Dealing with the past is the responsibility of non-governmental organisations”; “Dealing with the past is the responsibility of the state”; “Dealing with the past is not my responsibility”; “Dealing with the past is the responsibility of the victims”.
“The most important thing is to convict the criminals”; “The most important thing is to establish the truth”; “The most important thing is satisfaction for the victims”; “The most important thing is for my side to admit it committed crimes”.
“My society has progressed far in dealing with the past”; “My society has not even started this process”; “My society has made small steps”; “My society deals with the past every day”.

Note

This exercise is useful to start working on the topic because it is a relatively quick and easy way to come to the exchange, by providing a better picture of the different experiences in the group, and it also provides information about the extent to which we have already taken a stand in relation to the topic. This kind of exchange contributes to better mutual understanding, which is of crucial importance for a constructive approach to the more demanding questions in this area. If a sound level of exchange has not yet been established in the group (or if the exercise is being done already on the first or second day of the training), it should be noted that it can be demanding for some people because it requires taking a clear stand on difficult issues.

The Heroes

Type of exercise: Work in small groups, discussion in plenary

Duration: 45–60 minutes

Materials: Flipchart paper, markers

Exercise description

The participants split into small groups based on nationality: Albanians, Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Macedonians, etc. Each group should make a list of the national heroes of their community (irrespective of whether they personally see them as heroes or not). After they are done, each group reads out “their” heroes. Do not allow discussion to start before all the groups have presented their lists of heroes. Clarifications should only be allowed for lesser-known names. This is followed by discussion in the plenary.

Discussion in the plenary

Suggested questions for the discussion:
What observations do you have on your own list and those of the other groups?
How do you feel about the listed names? To what extent are they also your personal “heroes”? Is there a pattern for how people become national heroes in our region?
How are these heroes related to the way our societies relate to the past? Why are there so few women on these lists?

Note

This exercise provides an insight into what our societies value. This exercise can also be used for the topic National Identity.

Alternative version of the exercise

Personal heroes. Participants work individually and write down who their heroes were during childhood and who they are now.
They split into small groups (made up of people from different regions). They discuss the heroes they wrote down.
A small group writes a list of those considered heroes in our societies on a large paper (wall newspaper).
Discussion in the plenary, impressions, comments.

What Our Societies Deny

Type of exercise: Work in small groups, discussion in plenary

Duration: 60 minutes

Materials: Flipchart paper, markers

Exercise description

The participants split into groups based on nationality. Their task is to discuss and prepare a presentation about What our society denies (in relation to dealing with the past). The presentations should include concrete examples. The time for working in groups is about 25 minutes. Then each group presents its conclusions, with possible questions for clarification.

Note

It can be useful to give some brief theoretical input before this exercise to get the participants thinking about less obvious forms of denial. For example, Cohen’s “states of denial” in relation to what is being denied.*

* Stanley Cohen. Stanje poricanja: Znati za zlodela i patnje [States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering] (Belgrade: Samizdat B92, 2003), pp. 30–33. In addition to literal denial – claiming that something did not happen – Cohen defines another two types. One is interpretive denial, when we accept the facts but assign them a different meaning. The other is implicatory denial, when we accept the facts about what happened and even their interpretation, but refuse to concede that it has anything to do with us.