Peace & Change. 2022;00:1–20. | 1wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pech

Received:14March2022 | Accepted:14March2022

DOI:10.1111/pech.12525

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

Reclaiming humanity together: The impact of intra- and interpersonal factors on survivor readiness to reconcile in post- genocide Rwanda

Christine Kindler1 | Christophe Mbonyingabo2 | Grace Karekezi2 | Ezer Kang1

©2022PeaceHistorySocietyandWileyPeriodicalsLLC.

1DepartmentofPsychology,HowardUniversity,Washington,DC,USA2ChristianActionforReconciliationandSocialAssistance,Kigali,Rwanda

CorrespondenceChristineKindler,DepartmentofPsychology,HowardUniversity,2041GeorgiaAve,NWWashington,DC20059,USA.Email:christine.kindler@bison.howard.edu

AbstractAfterthe1994genocideagainsttheTutsi,manygrassrootsinitiativesinRwandahavefocusedonreconciliation.Thecurrent study examined the relationships between survi-vor readiness to reconcile and génocidaire shame, guilt,and self-forgiveness and survivor traumatic stress, de-sire for outgroup interaction, and beliefs about outgroupmembers.Survivors(n = 45)andtheirdirectperpetrators(n = 46)whoparticipatedasadyadinalocalpeacebuildingprogramwereinterviewedatfourstrategicphases.Nosig-nificantrelationshipwasfoundbetweensurvivorreadinesstoreconcileandgénocidaireshameandguilt;génocidaireself-forgiveness did not mediate this relationship. Highersurvivor traumatic stress symptoms were associated withlowerreadinesstoreconcile,andgreatersurvivordesireforoutgroupinteractionwasassociatedwithgreaterreadinesstoreconcile.Fewersurvivorprejudicialbeliefstowardsgé-nocidairesweresignificantlyassociatedwithhigherreadi-nesstoreconcile.Decadesafterthegenocide,reconciliationfollowsanon-lineartrajectoryandmaybemoreinfluencedbyintrapersonalthaninterpersonalfactors.

2 | PEACE & CHANGE

Reconciliationinapost-genocidecontextcanbeanambiguousandmessyprocess.Rwandaisnoexception,wheregenerationsofintergroupconflictanddeepgrievancesonbothsidesculmi-natedinthe1994genocideagainsttheTutsi.1.Althoughnationaljusticeprocesseswereswiftlyimplementedafterthegenocide,manycontendthattheyfailedtoeffectivelytransformthere-lationshipsbetweensurvivorsandtheirdirectperpetrators(hereinreferredtoasgénocidaires).Duetothelevelofbrutalityandhighrateofcivilianinvolvementinthe1994genocideagainsttheTutsi,muchofthecurrentliteraturehasfocusedonwhysomanyordinarypeopleparticipatedintheRwandangenocide,aswellassurvivorrecovery.However,lessisknownabouttheprocessofreconciliationbetweensurvivorsandgénocidairesovertime,orwhatmotivatessurvivorstoen-gageinthisprocess.Thecurrentlongitudinalstudyseekstobetterunderstandthevariousintra-andinterpersonalfactorsthatimpactsurvivorreadinesstoreconcilewithgénocidaires.BasedonstructuredquantitativeinterviewswithsurvivorsandgénocidaireswhoparticipatedinCows for Peace(CFP),alocalpeacebuildinginterventionbasedonintergroupcontacttheory,weexaminedtherelationshipsbetweensurvivorreadinesstoreconcileandthefollowingfactorsthroughoutthecourseoftheintervention:génocidaireshameandguiltandself-forgiveness,survivortrau-maticstresssymptoms,desireforoutgroupinteraction,andbeliefsaboutoutgroupmembers.

BACKGROUND

Reconciliation in Rwanda

Theconceptofreconciliationhasmanydifferentdefinitions,andthewayinwhichitisconcep-tualizedmayinpartdependupontheharmthatwasdoneandthecontextinwhichittookplace.Assuch,abriefhistoricalcontextoftheconflictinRwandamayaidintheexplorationofhowvarious intra- and interpersonal factors impact survivor readiness to reconcile. Following thegenocide,therewasalargediscrepancybetweenthegovernmentnarrativeofreconciliationandtheexperienceofRwandancitizens.Transitionaljusticeinitiatives,includingtheInternationalCriminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and National Unity and Reconciliation Commission(NURC),werecharacterizedastop-downpoliticalmissions.Byadaptingidentitymanagementstrategies,theseinitiativespromotedsupercategorizationbasedonnationalityinordertofosterpeace.Forexample,theNURCusedtheslogan“OneRwanda”toemphasizeasharedaspectofidentity(i.e.,nationality)forHutus,Tutsis,andTwa.Inanin-depthqualitativestudy,EugeniaZorbas(2009)identifiedthegapsbetweenthepublictranscriptofunityandreconciliationandthe“hiddentranscripts”thatmoreaccuratelydescribedthesocialrealityofRwandancitizens.2.Although the community-led gacaca courts processed almost one million common offendersusingelementsofrestorativejusticetoreintegrategénocidairesintotheircommunities,manyRwandanswerestillleftwiththeneedfornon-politicized,interpersonalreconciliationprocesses.

AsDanielRothbart&KarinaKorostelina(2007)noted,“Anyconflictresolutionstrategythatdoesnotaddressthepsychologicalneedsofthevictimsandvictimizerscanonlyhaveasuper-ficialeffectontheresolution,especiallyofethnicandsectarianconflict.”3.Sincesurvivorsandgénocidairescontinuetoliveincloseproximitywithoneanother,andoftenrelyononeanotherforlivelihood,manyhaveadoptedthesurvivalstrategyof“chosenamnesia.”Thisphenomenontakesplacewhen“thepastisdistortedtoestablishgroupcoherence…Peoplenevertalkaboutthepastbecauseitbringsbackbadmemoriesandproblems.”4.Thedeepandunaddressedsocialdi-videsthatledtothegenocidemaystillbepresentinRwandatoday,andpossiblythreatenlastingpeace.

| 3RECLAIMING HUMANITY TOGETHER

Although theprocessof reconciliation iscontext-specific,most scholarsagree that itmusttakeplaceinthecontextofrelationship.InThe Moral Imagination,JohnPaulLederach(2011)describesitas“thecapacitytoimagineourselvesinawebofrelationshipsthatincludeourene-mies…Thecentralityofrelationshipsprovidesthecontextandpotentialforbreakingviolence,foritbringspeopleinto…thespaceofrecognitionthatultimatelythequalityofourlifeisdependentonthequalityofothers.”5.Thissuggeststhatreconciliationisasocial,dyadicprocessthatre-quirestheparticipationofboththeharmedpartyandtheharm-doer.Itinvolvestakingpersonalresponsibility forone’sactionsandacknowledging that individualsandgroupsare inherentlydependentupononeanotherfortheirwell-being.SpecificallyinRwanda,thisprocessofholdinggénocidairesaccountableincreasedafeelingofsecurityforsurvivors,whichwasidentifiedasoneofthekeypreconditionsforreconciliation.6.

Factors affecting survivor readiness to reconcile

Bydefinition,reconciliationrequiresboththeharmedandtheharm-doertodirectlyengagewithone another. But what motivates or impedes a survivor to intentionally interact with the gé-nocidairewhocommittedviolenceagainstthemortheirfamilymember(s)?Abriefanalysisofintergrouprelationshipspriortothe1994genocideagainsttheTutsimayprovideadeeperun-derstandingofhowsurvivorsapproachthisprocess.

Socialboundariesanddehumanization

Intra- and interpersonal factors that affect reconciliation in Rwanda may be partially shapedbyeachgroup’shistoricalnarrativesofintergroupconflictpriortothegenocide.AccordingtoDavidMoshman(2007),massatrocitiesarefacilitatedbythedehumanizationofindividualsorgroups—aphenomenonthatistypicallyprecededbythecreationand/orstrengtheningofsocialboundaries.7.Thesecanlaterbeleveragedbygroupleadersatspecifictimestomobilizemembersinresponsetoaperceivedthreat.InRwanda,thesesocialboundariesweredrawnlongbeforethe1994genocide.Earlycolonialpowersintroducedethniccategories,usingapre-existingsocialhierarchytopromotetheideaofaraciallysuperiorgroup(i.e.,Tutsis)toruleontheirbehalf.This continued tobe reinforcedbyaneducational systemandeconomicpolicies that furtherdisadvantagedHutus,andwassolidifiedbytheemergenceofstate-issuedethnicidentificationcards.8.,9.In1959,theendofcolonialruleinRwandaprompteddisenfranchisedHutustoengageinaviolentrebellion,resultinginthedeathofapproximately50,000TutsisandamassexileofTutsisintoUganda(andlatertheformationoftheRwandanPatrioticFront).WhileHutusper-ceivedtherebellionasasocialrevolution,Tutsisviewedtheeventasagenocideormassacre.Thepatternofperceivingviolentevents targetingspecificethnicgroupsascollective traumas(orvictories)ispresentthroughoutthegenerationsofconflictinRwanda.VamikVolkan(2001)labeledthisphenomenonchosen trauma—“thetransgenerationaltransmissionofamentalrep-resentationofatraumatichistoricalevent.”10.Thisoftenoccursafteralargegroupexperiencesaconflictwithanothergroupthatresultsinfeelingsofhelplessness,victimization,andalossofdignity,followedbyaninabilitytomourntheevent.Chosentraumashavethepowertosignifi-cantlyshapelargegroupidentityandcanbereactivatedlongaftertheeventhasended.Thiscanalsoresultinindividualsexperiencingtraumasymptomsand/oramplifythedesireforrevengeandtriggeractsofviolence.

4 | PEACE & CHANGE

Trauma&reconciliation

Itisnosurprisethatreactivationofchosentraumascanoccurduringthereconciliationprocess,causingsurvivorstoexperiencetraumareactions(e.g.,fight,flight,orfreezeresponse)whileen-gagingwithgénocidaires.Existingliteraturedemonstratesthathighertraumasymptomologyisassociatedwithlowersurvivorreadinesstoreconcile.Forexample,onestudyfoundthatformerchildsoldiersinUgandaandtheDemocraticRepublicoftheCongowhoreportedmorepost-traumaticstresssymptoms(PTSS)weresignificantlylessopentoreconciliationandexperiencedmore feelings of revenge.11. Another study conducted by Phuong Pham, Harvey Weinstein &TimothyLongman (2004) inRwanda reported that thosewhometcriteria forpost-traumaticstressdisorder(PTSD)weremorelikelytoendorsetheICTRandlesslikelytosupportthegacacacourtsormorerestorativeapproachestojustice.12.Thoseexposedtomoretraumaticeventsdur-ingthegenocidewerealsolesslikelytohavepositiveattitudestowardscommunity,nonviolence,and interdependence with other ethnic groups. This indicates that addressing contextualizedtraumasymptomsinsurvivorsiskeytopromotingreadinesstoreconcile.

Chosentraumascanalsobeexploitedtopromoteprejudicialbeliefsaboutoutgroupmembers.Forexample,aftertheRPFlaunchedaninvasionintoRwandain1990,theHuturegimebuiltuponpre-existingprejudiceandfeartorallymassgroupsofHutustocommitviolenceagainsttheirTutsi neighbors.This was done primarily through the use of propaganda, disseminatedlargelythroughradioprograms.13.ThiswidespreaddehumanizationoftheTutsiwasmadepos-sibleinpartbypre-existingstereotypes—afactorknowntobeoneofthestrongestpredictorsofviolenceagainstanoutgroup.14.Throughtheprocessofcategorization,manygénocidairescametoviewallTutsisassubhuman(e.g.,commonlyreferencedascockroaches),and thereforeanenemythatmustbedestroyedinordertoprotecttheingroup.15.,16.Thisindicatesthat,alongwithexistingtrauma,addressingprejudiceandrehumanizingoutgroupmembers(forbothHutusandTutsis)isvitaltothereconciliationprocess.

Justice-orientedhealing:Storytellingandperspective-taking

Justice-oriented approaches can provide an opportunity for both trauma healing and re-humanization of the outgroup, as well as create a sense of safety for survivors. For example,truth-tellingandanhonestrecountingofpastharmsinapublicorsemi-publicsettingrenderitdifficultforharm-doerstodenywhathappened.Additionally,truth-tellingcanaddresstherolethatchosentraumasplayedinthe1994genocidebyprovidingspacetoacknowledgethehistoryofsufferinganddiscriminationonbothsides.17.Thisfacilitatestheprocessofdecategorization,in which individuals from different groups develop more nuanced perspectives of each otherbasedonindividualcharacteristicsversusgroupidentity.18.Story-tellingcanalsoplayaroleinhelpingbothpartiesreclaimasenseofhumanity.19.,20.

While sharing one’s experiences has been documented as a key aspect of healing for sur-vivors,existing literaturealso indicates thatsurvivorreadiness toreconcilemaybesomewhatdependent upon the harm-doer’s ability to reclaim their own sense of humanity. In Rwanda,manygénocidairesreportedthatastheirparticipationinthegenocideincreased,theybegantolosetouchwiththeirownhumanity.Severalexperiencedaslowdesensitizationtoviolenceandaneedtodisconnectfromthemselvesandothers,aswellasfeelingsofnumbness.21.,22.Tocreateasafeenvironmentforasurvivortoengagewiththegénocidaire,thelattermustdemonstratethattheyhavereconnectedtothemselvesandothersenoughtounderstandtheharmtheycaused,

| 5RECLAIMING HUMANITY TOGETHER

takeresponsibility for theiractions,andexpress regret.23.,24.Thismaybeexplained inpartbythetheoryofperceivedperspective-taking,whichproposesthat“avictimmayinferthattheof-fenderexperiencesthesemoralemotionswhentheoffenderhas(successfully)takenthevictim’sperspective.”25.

Génocidaireshameandself-forgiveness

Asgénocidairesbegantoacceptresponsibilityfortheiractionsduringthetransitionaljusticepro-cessesthattookplaceafterthegenocide,manygrappledwithoverwhelmingfeelingsofshameandguilt.26.Inmanycases,remorse,guiltandshameinperpetratorshavebeenpositivelyassoci-atedwithconciliatoryattitudesinsurvivors.27.,28.Shameissociallyadaptivewhenitmotivatestheperpetratortoparticipateinthereconciliationprocessinhopesofrelievingtheunpleasantemotion,therebypromotingcooperation,socialsurvival,andrelationships.29.Whenshamefa-cilitatesthere-integrationofaperpetratorbackintotheircommunity,itcanplayanimportantroleinreconciliation.30.

However, shamebecomesabarrier to survivor readiness to reconcilewhen itoverwhelmsthegénocidaire.Unresolvedshamecantriggerdefensiveness,resultinginthegénocidairemin-imizing blame, justifying their actions, or blaming the victim.31.This causes further harm tothesurvivorandimpedesthereconciliationprocess.32.,33.Shamecanalsoleadtopersistentself-condemnationorpunishment,resultinginruminationandavoidance.34.Thus,thepsychologi-calstateinwhichthegénocidaireentersthereconciliationprocessmaybeveryimportant.Ifasurvivorengageswiththegénocidaireandperceivesthatsheorheisoverwhelmedbyshameor defensiveness, the survivor may be less ready to engage the reconciliation process.To ourknowledge,noresearchhasbeenconductedinRwandatodetermineiforhowtheseemotionsimpactedsurvivorreadinesstoreconcile.

Forgiveness (including self-forgiveness) can also be pivotal in the reconciliation process.Forgivenessoftheharm-doerindicatesthatthesurvivorhasreleasedtheirangeranddesireforrevenge,andcanfacilitatepersonalhealing,buildtrustinthecommunity,andpreventfutureviolence.35.,36. Although reconciliation may be promoted when a harm-doer’s apology is metwithunderstanding,empathyandacceptance, thisburdenshouldnotbeplacedonthesurvi-vor.37.Alternatively,self-forgivenessmayhelpgénocidairestakeresponsibilitywithoutbecomingoverwhelmedbyshame.38.Self-forgivenesscanbethoughtofas“awillingnesstoabandonself-resentmentinthefaceofone’sownacknowledgedobjectivewrong,whilefosteringcompassion,generosity, and love toward oneself.”39. Unlike interpersonal forgiveness, self-forgiveness is a“whollyintrapersonalconstruct”andcantakeplacewithinagénocidairepriortoorthroughoutthereconciliationprocess.40.Thishelpsthegénocidairerestoretheirmoralself,aswellasexperi-enceincreasedempathyandwillingnesstoreconcilewithsurvivors.41.

Giventheprotractedhistoryofprejudicialbeliefsandlackofdesireformeaningfulinterac-tionsbetweenHutusandTutsis,aswellasreactivationofcollective traumasforbothgroups,survivorreadinesstoreconcilewithgénocidairesmaydependonseveralconcurrentprocesses.Theseincludeaddressingintrapersonalfactors,suchasindividualandcollectivepsychologicaltrauma, génocidaire self-forgiveness, and survivor desire for outgroup interaction and beliefsaboutoutgroupmembers.Severalinterpersonalfactorsshouldalsobeconsidered,includingsur-vivors’perceptionofgénocidaireshameandguilt.Asthesedynamicscanpotentiallyshapethedevelopmentandoutcomesofpeaceinterventions,theyhavebeencarefullyconsideredinthede-signandevaluationprocessofCowsforPeace(CFP)whichpairedsurvivorsofthe1994genocide

6 | PEACE & CHANGE

againsttheTutsiwiththeirdirectperpetrators.42.Together,thedyadsparticipatedina14-monthinterventionthatincludedapsychoeducationalworkshop,peercellgroups,andcooperativecowraising.The current study specifically examines the relationships between survivor readinesstoreconcileandthefollowingvariablesatselectphasesoftheintervention:survivortraumaticstress,desireforoutgroupinteraction,andprejudicialbeliefsaboutoutgroupmembers,aswellasgénocidaireshameandguiltandself-forgiveness.

Hypotheses

Giventhatprejudicialbeliefsandstrongsocialboundariescanincreaseorperpetuateconflict,wehypothesizedthat,afterparticipatinginkeyprogrammaticactivities,highersurvivorreadinesstoreconcilewillbeassociatedwithincreaseddesireforoutgroupinteraction(H1)anddecreasedprejudicialbeliefsaboutgénocidaires(H2).Wealsohypothesizethathighersurvivorreadinesstoreconcilewillbesignificantlyassociatedwithfewertraumasymptoms(H3).Finally,highersurvivorreadinesstoreconcilewillalsobeassociatedwithhighershamereportedbytheirdirectgénocidaire(H4).Moreover,wehypothesizedthatthisrelationshipwillbemediatedbygreatergénocidaireself-forgiveness(H5).Clarityontheserelationshipswillcontinuetoinformthede-velopmentandimplementationofpeacebuildinginterventionswiththeaimofpromotingcon-tinuedinterpersonalreconciliationinRwanda(seeFigure1).

METHODS

Intervention: Cows for Peace

Cows for Peacewasdevelopedandimplementedbyalocalfaith-basedorganizationinRwanda,ChristianActionforReconciliationandSocialAssistance(CARSA).Whileabriefdescriptionofprogramdevelopmentandinterventionactivitiescanbefoundbelow,moredetails,includingafullprogramevaluation,havebeenpublishedinapreviousmanuscript.43.Theprogramappliedprinciplesofcontacthypothesistopromotereconciliationbetweengénocidairesandsurvivorstheydirectlyharmedduringthegenocidein1994.44.Researchsuggeststhatpromotingmeaning-fulandsustained interactionsbetween twogroupswithahistoryofconflict cansignificantlycontributetothereconciliationprocess,asthisenablesmeaningfulrelationshipstodevelop,anincreaseddesireforoutgroupinteraction,andstereotypesandprejudicialbeliefstobechallenged.

F I G U R E 1 Intra-andinterpersonalfactorsaffectingsurvivorreadinesstoreconcile

| 7RECLAIMING HUMANITY TOGETHER

Thiscanbeaccomplishedinseveralways,oneofwhichincludesGordonAllport’s(1954)theoryofintergroupcontact,whichsuggeststhatwhenconflictingpartiesworktowardsasuperordi-nategoal—acommonaimthatbenefitsbothgroupsifachieved—thesalienceofingroupidentitydecreasesandamoreinclusivecollectiveidentityispromoted.Thisisonlysuccessfulundercer-tainconditions,includingcooperativeinterdependenceandpositiveinteractions.

Overtheyears,scholarshavecontinuedtobuildonAllport’stheory.Forexample,themutualintergroup differentiation model of Miles Hewstone and Rupert Brown suggests that positiveexperiencesandempathycanbebuiltnotonlythroughsharedexperiences,butalsobyallow-inggroupcategoriestobesalient.45.Thisenablesparticipantstochallengeoutgroupstereotypesanddevelopmorepositiverelationships.46.AstudyconductedbyAlexandraScaccoandShanaWarren(2018)inNigeriaalsosuggeststhatinterventionsfocusedonskill-building,versuspeacemessaging,resultedinreduceddiscriminationtowardsoutgroupmembers.47.

Cows for Peacefosteredanon-politicizedenvironmentinwhichsurvivorsandthosewhodi-rectlyharmed themor their familymembersduring thegenocidecouldhaveongoing, inten-tional contact (herein referred to as a survivor–génocidaire dyad).Three programmed phasesincluded:psychoeducationalworkshops,peer-ledcellgroups,andcooperativecowraising.Eachphaseoftheinterventionuniquelyaddressedaspectsofthereconciliationprocessbyprovidingopportunitiesforsurvivorsandgénocidairestointeractindifferentwaysandtovaryingdegrees.More specifically, CFP supported the psychological needs of both survivors and génocidairesandfostereddialoguethatenabledparticipantstotelltheirstoriesandprovidedopportunitiesforgénocidairestotakeresponsibilityandshowremorse.Italsopromotedanenvironmentinwhichthetwogroupscouldintentionallyinteractoveraperiodoftime,whileworkingtowardsasharedgoal.

Phase1—Psychoeducationalworkshop:Initiatingcontactandaddressingpsychologicaltrauma

The3-dayEmpowerworkshopwasmodeledafteracognitive-behavioralprogramdesigned tosupportwar-affectedpersons inUganda.48.CARSAcontextualized theworkshopforRwanda,whose population is primarily Roman Catholic and Protestant Christian, by infusing it withChristian themesof forgivenessandreconciliation.Formanysurvivorsandperpetrators, thiswasthefirst timemanyof themhadinteractedwithoneanother inanofficialgroupsetting.Theworkshopprovidedpsychoeducationabouttheimpactoftraumawiththegoaloffosteringempathyandunderstandingonbothsides,aswellaspracticalskillstohelpparticipantsreframethoughtsaboutthemselvesandothers.Althoughdyadswerenotimmediatelypairedtogetherinthesamesmallgroup,theformatoftheworkshopsenabledsurvivorsandgénocidairestobeginsharingtheirstories.

Phase2—Peercellgroups:dialogue,story-telling&perspective-taking

During the second phase, groups of dyads gathered in their own villages. Although peer-led,thesegroupsreceivedassistancefromCARSAstaffasneeded.Theymetmonthlyforconversa-tions,sharedmeals,andengagedincommunalactivities.Thecellgroupsofferedanopportunityforparticipantstoengageincontinueddialogueaboutwhathappenedduringthegenocide,andforgénocidairestotakeresponsibilityfortheharmtheycaused.Italsoprovidedacontextfor

8 | PEACE & CHANGE

génocidairestotangiblyassistandsupportthosetheyharmedthroughthecommunalactivities,whichincludingfarmingandhomerepairsforsurvivors.Strongerrelationshipsbetweensurvi-vorsandgénocidairesaimedtofurtherchallengenegativeviewsandbeliefsbetweengroupsandheightenedsurvivorreadinessforreconciliation.

Phase3—Cooperativecowraising:Workingtowardsacommongoal

In the third phase of the intervention, randomly selected dyads received a cow to co-raise,providingasharedgoaluponwhichthepaircouldcontinuetobuildtheirrelationship.49.InadditiontothehistoricalsignificanceofcowsinRwanda,thistypeoflivestockwasselectedtobepartoftheinterventionbecauseoftheeconomicbenefitsitprovidedtoprogrampartici-pants.Althoughthecowwasraisedonthesurvivor’slandandacalfwaslaterconceivedandgiventothegénocidaire,theresponsibilitytocareforthecow(e.g.,buildingashed,buyingfeed,washing,feedingandgrazingthecow,milkingthecow,andsellingthemilk)wassharedequally.Thiscreatedarelationshipofmutualdependencenotonlybetweenthesurvivorsandgénocidairesbutalsobetweentheir respectivehouseholds.Althoughpowerdynamicswereconsideredthroughoutall threephasesof the intervention, theoverarchingaimof thepro-gramwastominimizeanydifferentialstatusbetweensurvivorandgénocidairedyads,andindoingsoaddressapracticalandsymbolicrootcauseoftheconflictthroughmeaningfulandintentionalinteractions.

Participants

Eligible participants were: (1) 25 years or older, (2) spoke Kinyarwanda, and (3) directlyexposed to genocide events. Survivors and génocidaires were identified in Mushishiro andNyarusange,twosectorsintheMuhangadistrict(seeKangetal.,2020referenceforfullre-cruitmentprocedure).Allparticipantstookpartinthefirstandsecondphasesoftheinterven-tion,andhalfthedyadswererandomlyselectedtoreceiveacowduringthethirdphase.TheinterviewswereconductedbysixRwandans—threemenandthreewomen,fourwereTutsiandtwowereHutu.Allinterviewershadbeendirectlyimpactedbythegenocide.InterviewswereconductedinKinyarwanda,andvalidatedmeasuresfrompublishedstudiesweretrans-latedfromEnglishtoKinyarwanda,andsubsequentlybacktranslatedtoEnglishbyasecondindependenttranslatorforreliability.Priortotheintervention,interviewersmetindividuallywithparticipants;informedconsentwasobtainedandbaselinedatawerecollected.ThestudywasapprovedbyInstitutionalReviewBoardsattheprimaryinvestigator’scurrentandformerinstitutions.

Data collection

Severalmeasureswereusedtocollectinformationonfactorsthataffectsurvivorreadinesstoreconcile.Theseincludedthefollowing:(1)survivorbeliefsaboutoutgroup,(2)survivordesireforoutgroupinteraction,(3)survivortraumaticstress,(4)génocidairestateshameandguilt,and (5) génocidaire self-forgiveness. Data were collected at seven time-points between May2017andMarch2019usinganonlinedatacollection system inKoBoToolbox (http://www.

| 9RECLAIMING HUMANITY TOGETHER

kobotoolbox.org).Interviewdatawascollectedandtemporarilysavedonmobiledevices,thensynchronized with a cloud server once connection to the internet was re-established in theresearchoffice.

Quantitativeinterviewswereconductedoverthecourseof22-months.Forthispaper,wean-alyzeddatapriortotheworkshopatTime1(T1),aftertheinitialintroductionandworkshopat2months(T2),afterparticipationinthepeer-ledcellgroupsat4months(T3),andfollowingthecooperativecowraisingat14months(T6;seeTable1).Examiningtheintra-andinterpersonalfactorsthatmayimpactsurvivorreadinesstoreconcileattheseselecttimepointsintheinterven-tioncanhelptoclarifyhowsurvivorsandgénocidairesviewedoneanotherandthemselvesafterengagingindifferentwaysandtovaryingdegreesofintensity.

Measures

Basedonpreviousstudies inpost-genocideRwandaandtheextensive fieldworkofourcom-munity partner, we selected the following measures of how survivors and génocidaires wereimpactedbythegenocide,andtheirattitudesandbeliefsaboutoutgroupmembers(i.e.,géno-cidaireswerethereferencedoutgroupforsurvivorsandsurvivorswerethereferencedoutgroupforgénocidaires).50.,51.,52.Informationregardingparticipantage,sex,maritalstatus,andlevelofeducationwasalsocollected.

Readinesstoreconcile

Survivorreadiness to reconcilewasassessedusingasurvey thatmeasuredan individual’sat-titudetowardsthosewhoparticipatedinthe1994genocideinRwanda.53.Usinga5-pointLikertscale,participantswereaskedtoranktheiragreementwith21items.Theseitemsincludedstate-mentssuchas“Eachgrouphasharmedtheother”and“Icanforgivemembersoftheothergroupwhoacknowledgetheharmtheirgroupdid.”Higherscoresindicatedgreaterreadinesstorecon-cile.Cronbach’sαrangedfrom0.60to0.78acrosstimepoints.

T A B L E 1 Timelineofdataanalyzed

Timepoint Survivors Génocidaires

3-Dayworkshop

T2Month2 A,B,C,D E,F

Cellgroups

T4Month4 A,B,C,D E,F

Cooperativecowraising

T6Month14 A,B,C,D E,F

A.SurvivorReadinesstoReconcile.B.SurvivorBeliefsaboutOutgroup.C.SurvivorDesiretoInteractwithOutgroup.D.SurvivorTraumaticStress.E.GénocidaireStateShameandGuilt.F.GénocidaireSelf-Forgiveness.

10 | PEACE & CHANGE

Desireforoutgroupinteraction

TheBogardusSocialDistancequestionnaire,a6-itemmeasureusedinastudyofethnicste-reotypes in South Africa, was adapted for the current study to measure survivor desire tointeractwithgénocidaires.54.Socialdistanceisthoughtofasthedegreeofunwillingnesstocasuallyinteractwithoutgroupmembers.Participantsratedtheextenttowhichtheywouldbehappy,from1(Veryunhappy)to4(Veryhappy)tohaveagénocidaireorafamilymemberofagénocidairemarryintotheirfamily,orbecomeaclosefriend,nextdoorneighbor,class-mateorcolleague,orspeakingacquaintance.Higherscoresindicatedlesssocialdistanceandgreater willingness to relate to génocidaires. Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.84 to 0.93 acrosstimepoints.

Beliefsaboutoutgroup

BasedonascaledevelopedbyElizabethPaluck(2009)tounderstandhowmassmediacontrib-utedtoprejudicialbeliefs inRwanda,weadaptedfiveitemstoexaminebeliefsandperceivedsocial norms regarding interactions with génocidaires.55. Using a 4-point Likert scale rangingfrom1(Stronglydisagree)to4(Stronglyagree),survivorsratedthedegreetowhichtheyagreedwithperceiveddescriptiveandprescriptivenormsofgénocidaires(e.g.,“thereismistrustinmycommunity”;“Iadvisemychildren[ortheonesIwillhaveinthefuture]thattheyshouldonlymarrypeoplefromthesameregional,religiousorethnicgroupasourown”).Highertotalscoresindicatedgreaterpositivepersonalbeliefsandperceivedsocialnorms.Cronbach’sαforsurvivorsrangedfrom0.25to0.67acrosstimepoints.

Traumaticstress

Ten traumatic stress symptoms based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria for PTSD was assessed. Survivorsused a 5-point Likert scale (1  =  Never to 5  =  Very Often) to rate how frequently they expe-rienced the list of symptoms. These included trauma-related recurrent automatic thoughts,dreams, flashbacks, pain, sleeplessness, irritability or anger, difficulty concentrating, aware-nessofdanger,andexaggeratedstartlereflex.ThismeasurehadbeenpreviouslytranslatedintoKinyarwanda.56.Higherscoresindicatedgreatertraumaticstress,andCronbach’sαrangedfrom0.71to0.86acrosstimepoints.

GénocidaireStateShameandGuilt

TheStateShameandGuiltScalewasa15-itemmeasureofguiltandshamerelatedtoanega-tiveevent.57.OurresearchteaminRwandareviewedthequestionsanddeterminedthattheitems appropriately addressed the context of the genocide. Génocidaires rated statementssuchas“Ifeelremorse,regret”and“IfeeltensionaboutwhatIdid”ona5-pointLikertscaleranging from1 (Not feeling thiswayatall) to5 (Feeling thiswaystrongly).Higherscoresindicatedgreaterguiltandshame,andCronbach’sαforgénocidairesrangedfrom0.35to0.55acrosstimepoints.

| 11RECLAIMING HUMANITY TOGETHER

Génocidairesself-forgiveness

TheStateSelf-ForgivenessScalequestionnairemeasuresanindividual’sattitudetowardshim-self/herselfregardinghis/herspecificactionsinaparticularsituation.58.Génocidaires’feelings,actionsandbeliefswereassessedthroughtheiragreementordisagreementona4-pointLikertscalewithstatementssuchas,“AsIconsideredwhatIdidwaswrong,IbelieveIamacceptable.”Themeasureisbasedonatwo-factormodel,withsubscalesconsistingofSelf-ForgivingBeliefsandSelf-ForgivingFeelingsandActions(SFFA),althoughonlythetotalscorewasusedinthecurrentstudy.Higherscoresindicatedhigherlevelsofself-forgiveness.Cronbach'sαforgénocid-airesrangedfrom0.81to0.97overthetimepoints.

Statistical analysis

Repeatedmeasuresanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)wasusedtodeterminechangesinsurvivorreadinesstoreconcile,beliefsaboutoutgroupmembers,desiretointeractwithoutgroupmem-bers,andtraumaticstresssymptoms,aswellasgénocidaireshameandguiltandself-forgivenessacrossall fourtimepoints—baseline,afterthepsychoeducationalworkshops(2months),afterparticipatinginthepeer-ledcellgroups(4months)andattheconclusionoftheintervention(14months).Bivariatecorrelationanalyseswereconductedtoexaminetherelationshipsbetweensurvivorreadinesstoreconcileandfourvariablesofinterest(i.e.,survivordesireforoutgroupinteraction,beliefsaboutoutgroup,andtraumaticstress).Amediationmodelwasusedtoexam-inetherelationshipsbetweensurvivorreadinesstoreconcile,génocidaireshameandguiltandgénocidaireself-forgivenessatall fourtimepoints.Bootstrapmethodswereusedtodeterminewhetherornotself-forgivenessmediatedtherelationshipbetweengénocidaireshameandguiltandsurvivorreadinesstoreconcile.AnalyseswereconductedusingSPSS26andPROCESS,acomputationalmacrothatestimatesdirectandindirecteffectsinmediationmodels.59.

RESULTS

Participant demographics

Atotalof45dyadsparticipatedinthecurrentstudy(survivorn = 45;génocidairen = 46).Themeanageofparticipantswas59yearsforsurvivorsand57yearsforgénocidaires.Allthegéno-cidairesweremaleandapproximatelyhalfthesurvivorswerefemale(51.1%).Thehighestlevelofeducationforparticipantswassecondaryschool,withmosthavingattendedprimaryschool(66.7%ofsurvivors;52.2%ofgénocidaires).Lessthanhalfofsurvivorsweremarriedandlivingwiththeirspouse(46.7%),whilethemajorityofgénocidairesweremarriedandlivingwiththeirspouse(93.5%;seeTable2).Whilehalfthedyadswererandomlyselectedtoreceivecowsduringthethirdphaseoftheintervention,thecurrentstudydoesnotanalyzegroupdifferencesbetweenthosewhoreceivedacowandthosewhodidnot.60.

Survivor and génocidaire measures across time- points

ThemeansandstandarddeviationsforthevariablesofinterestarelistedinTable3.TheresultsofrepeatedmeasuresANOVAandBonferroni’spost-hoctestsfollow.First,survivorreadiness

12 | PEACE & CHANGE

toreconcilesignificantlychangedacrosstimepoints(T1,T2,T4,andT6).Post-hoctestfurtherindicatedthatsurvivorreadinesstoreconcileincreasedbetweenT1(M = 74.38,SD = 7.01)andT2(M = 80.40,SD = 5.91),aswellasbetweenT1andT6(M = 79.56,SD = 5.88).However,readi-nesstoreconcilesignificantlydecreasedbetweenT2(M = 80.40,SD = 5.91)andT6(M = 79.56,SD = 5.88).Survivorbeliefsaboutoutgroupmembersalsochangedsignificantlyacross time,withincreasesinpositivebeliefsfromT1(M = 13.78,SD = 1.85)toT2(M = 16.02,SD = 2.41),aswellasfromT1toT4(M = 15.51,SD = 1.85)andT1toT6(M = 15.42,SD = 2.26).Survivorde-siretointeractwithoutgroupmemberssimilarlychangedacrosstimewithsignificantincreasefromT1(M = 14.40,SD = 3.28)toT2(M = 16.87,SD = 3.27),T1toT4(M = 17.53,SD = 2.83),andT1toT6(M = 16.51,SD = 2.52).Finally,PTSSreportedbysurvivorsalsochangedacrosstimewithsignificantdecreasesfromT1(M = 30.02,SD = 5.57)toT2(M = 22.47,SD = 4.74),T1toT4(M = 21.78,SD = 5.21)andT1toT6(M = 19.22,SD = 5.76).PTSSscoresalsodecreasedfromT2(M = 22.47,SD = 4.74)toT6(M = 19.22,SD = 5.76).

Forgénocidaires, reportedguiltandshamechangedacross timewithsignificantdecreasesinscoresfromT1(M = 55.54,SD = 12.70)toT4(M = 46.02,SD = 12.13)andfromT1toT6(M = 40.15,SD = 8.66).GuiltandshamealsodecreasedfromT2(M = 53.74,SD = 14.89)toT4(M = 46.02,SD = 12.13)andfromT4(M = 46.02,SD = 12.13)toT6(M = 40.15,SD = 8.66).Génocidaire self-forgiveness also changed across time with significant increase in scores be-tweenT1(M = 37.22,SD = 12.42)andT4(M = 46.83,SD = 14.09),fromT1toT6(M = 52.98,SD = 10.05),andfromT2(M = 41.33,SD = 15.21)toT6(M = 52.98,SD = 10.05).

Relationships between survivor and génocidaire measures

Survivordesiretointeractwithgénocidaireswaspositivelycorrelatedwithreadinesstorecon-cile (H1) at T1, r (45)  =  0.396, p  <  0.01 and T2, r (45)  =  0.391. The fewer prejudicial beliefs

T A B L E 2 Backgroundofcowsforpeacesurvivor–génocidairedyadsincludedinanalysis(N = 91)

Demographic informationSurvivors (n = 45)n (%)

Génocidaires (n = 46)n (%)

AgeM(SD) 59.31(11.65) 56.55(8.27)Gender

Male 22(48.9%) 44(100%)Female 23(51.1%) 0(0%)

HighesteducationattainedNone 13(28.9%) 20(43.5%)Primaryschool 30(66.7%) 23(52.2%)Secondaryschool 2(4.4%) 1(2.2%)Vocational 0(0%) 1(2.2%)

MaritalstatusMarried,livingwithspouse 21(46.7%) 43(93.5%)Married,notlivingwithspouse 3(6.7%) 1(2.2%)Widowed 18(40.0%) 0(0.0%)Divorced 2(4.4%) 0(0.0%)Separated 1(2.2%) 2(4.3%)

| 13RECLAIMING HUMANITY TOGETHER

aboutoutgroupsasurvivorheld,themoretheywerereadytoreconcile(H2)atT1,r(45) = 0.551,p < 0.01,atT2,r(45) = 0.684,p < 0.01,andatT6,r(45) = 0.368,p < 0.05.Highertraumasymp-tomologyinsurvivorswasassociatedwithlowerreadinesstoatT1,r(45) = −0.350,p < 0.05,atT2,r(45) = −0.427,p < 0.01,andatT4,r(45) = −0.352,p < 0.05,butnosignificantcorrelationwasfoundatT6(H3).Resultsfromourmediationanalysisindicatednosignificantrelationshipbetweengénocidaireshameguiltandsurvivorreadinesstoreconcileatanytimepoint.Thetotalindirecteffectofgénocidaireshameandguiltonsurvivorreadinesstoreconcilewithgénocid-aireself-forgivenessasamediator(H5)wasalsonotstatisticallysignificantatanytimepoint(seeTable4).

DISCUSSION

Theaimofthecurrentstudywastoexploretheextenttowhichcertainfactorsimpactasur-vivor’s readiness to reconcile with their direct perpetrator after the 1994 genocide againsttheTutsi inRwanda.Weconsideredtwotypesoffactors—inter-andintrapersonaldynam-ics. Our findings indicate that the interpersonal factors measured (i.e., génocidaire shameandguiltandself-forgiveness)donotsignificantlyimpactsurvivorreadinesstoreconcileatanypointthroughouttheintervention.Moreover,wefoundthatthemostimportantrolethe

T A B L E 3 Descriptionofvariablesforsurvivorreadinesstoreconcile(meansandstandarddeviation)

Variable

T1 (baseline)M (SD)N

T2 (2 months)M (SD)N

T4 (4 months)M (SD)N

T6 (14 months)M (SD)N

Survivors

Readinesstoreconcile1 74.38(7.01)a,c45

80.40(5.91)a,e45

76.29(7.37)45

79.56(5.88)c,e45

Desiretointeractwithoutgroup2

14.40(3.28)a,b,c45

16.87(3.37)a45

17.53(2.83)b45

16.51(2.52)c45

Beliefsaboutoutgroup3 13.78(1.85)a,b,c45

16.02(2.41)a45

15.51(1.85)b45

15.42(2.26)c45

Traumaticstress4 30.02(5.57)a,b,c45

22.47(4.74)a,e45

21.78(5.21)b45

19.22(5.76)c,e45

Génocidaires

Stateshameandguilt5 55.54(12.70)b,c54

53.74(14.89)d41

46.02(12.13)b,d,f46

40.15(8.66)c,f39

Self-forgiveness6 37.22(12.42)b,c54

41.33(15.21)d46

46.83(14.09)b46

52.98(10.05)c,e46

Significantpost-hocdifferences(p < 0.05)betweentimepointsaredenotedasfollows:aT1toT2;bT1toT4;cT1toT6;dT2toT4;eT2toT6;fT4toT6.1Range = 52–94,withhigherscoresindicatinggreaterreadinesstoreconcile.2Range = 8–24,withhigherscoresindicatinggreaterwillingnesstointeractwiththegénocidaire.3Range = 10–20,withhigherscoresindicatingmorepositivepersonalbeliefsaboutgénocidaire4Range = 11–39,withhigherscoresindicatinggreatertraumasymptomology.5Range = 16–75,withhigherscoresindicatinggreaterlevelsofshameandguilt.6Range = 17–68,withhigherscoresindicatingmoreself-forgivingfeelings,actionsandbeliefsrelatedtoparticipationinthegenocide.

14 | PEACE & CHANGE

génocidairecanplayistobeactivelyengagedwithsurvivorsovertime—thestate inwhichtheyengagetheprocessmayhavenegligibleeffectsonsurvivors’readinesstoreconcile.

Thisisperhapsbecausethegénocidaire’spresenceenablesarelationshiptoformthatfos-terstransformationwithinthesurvivor,betterpreparinghimorherforreconciliation.Thistransformation involves several intrapersonal factors, including survivor desire to interactwithandbeliefsaboutgénocidaires,aswellastraumaticstress.Thesefactors(andtheirre-lationshiptoreadinesstoreconcile)changesignificantlyforsurvivorsastheirrelationshipswith génocidaires deepen in a non-linear manner. In fact, survivor readiness to reconcilefluctuatedthroughoutthecourseof theintervention.Eachphaseof theprogramgraduallyintensified the quality and depth of interactions between survivors and génocidaires withactivitiesthatwerespecificallysequencedtomeettheneedsofparticipantsandtopromotemutualreadiness toreconcile.Clarityonhowthecomplexitiesof thisprocesscanhelp in-form the development—particularly the content and sequencing—of future peacebuildinginterventionsisdiscussedbelow.

Desire to interact with outgroup members

Beforetheintervention(T1)andafterthedyad’sfirstinteractionsattheworkshop(T2),sur-vivordesiretointeractwithgénocidaires(e.g.,haveagénocidaireasanacquaintance,closefriend,nextdoorneighbor,classmate,coworker,ormarryintothefamily)andsurvivorreadi-nesstoreconcileweresignificantlycorrelated,butthisrelationshipwasnolongersignificantas the interactions between the survivor and génocidaire deepened during the cell groups(T4)andco-cowraising(T6).Aspreviouslymentioned,survivorsoftenhadcloserelationshipswiththegénocidairesbywhomtheyweredirectlyharmed.Followingthegenocide,survivorswerepossiblylesswillingtointeractwithgénocidaires(and/ortheirfamilies)asaprotectivemeasure.Thissocialdistancebetweensurvivorsandgénocidairesmayhaveincreasedfearandavoidanceofoutgroupmembers,thuscontributingtolowersurvivorreadinesstoreconcile.61.Forsomedyads,theworkshopwasthefirsttimethetwoindividualshadformallyinteractedsincethegenocidein1994.Throughouttheintervention,survivordesiretointeractwithgé-nocidaires significantly increased frombaseline toeach timepoint (T2,T4,andT6).Oneofthegoalsoftheworkshopwastofosterempathyonbothsidesbyprovidingtheopportunityforparticipantstosharethenuancesoftheirexperiencesduringandafterthegenocide.Astheinterventionprogressedandrelationshipsbetweensurvivorsandgénocidairesdeveloped,survivorsmighthavecometoperceivegénocidaireswithmoreunderstanding.Asaresult,itispossiblethatdesiretointeract(orlackthereof)playedlessofaroleonsurvivors’readinesstoreconcile.

T A B L E 4 Bivariatecorrelationsforfactorsassociatedsurvivorreadinesstoreconcile

Survivor readiness to reconcile T1 (Baseline) T2 (2 months) T4 (4 months)

T6 (14 months)

Beliefsaboutoutgroup 0.551b 0.684b 0.135 0.368a

Desiretointeractwithoutgroup 0.396b 0.391b −0.014 0.181

Traumaticstress −0.350a −0.427b −0.352a −0.04aCorrelationissignificantatthe0.05level.bCorrelationissignificantatthe0.01level.

| 15RECLAIMING HUMANITY TOGETHER

Beliefs about outgroup members

Alongsideagrowingdesire to interact, survivors’beliefsaboutgénocidairesalsogrewsignifi-cantlymorepositivefrombaselinetoeachtimepoint(T2,T4,andT6).Itislogicalthatthemorepositivebeliefssurvivorsholdaboutoutgroupmembers,thegreatertheirreadinesstoreconcileis (and vice versa), which can be seen at baseline and after the workshops (T2). However, itisnoteworthythatthisrelationshipbetweenbeliefsaboutoutgroupmembersandreadinesstoreconcilewasnotsignificantafterthedyadsparticipatedinthecellgroups(atT4),butthenwassignificantagainattheendoftheintervention(T6).Onepossibleexplanationforthisisthat,be-tweenthecellgroupsandtheendoftheintervention,halfofthedyadsreceivedcowstoco-raise.Asthecowwasintroduced,thesurvivor’slivelihoodwassuddenlytiedtothesuccessoftheirrelationshipwiththegénocidaire,asituationthatrequiredagreaterdepthofsocialandfinancialdependencybetweenthesurvivorandgénocidaire.Althoughspecificconflictsduringthisstageoftheinterventionwerenotdocumented,thepressureofco-raisingacowmighthavecreatedanenvironmentinwhicholdbeliefsresurfacedduringhigh-stressmomentsofinteractionandbegantoonceagainimpactsurvivorreadinesstoreconcile.Thiswarrantsfurtherresearch,aswellastheconsiderationofusinglower-risklivestockinfuturepeacebuildinginterventions(e.g.,chickenandgoats).

Thisfindingalsosuggeststhatotherinterpersonalandsocio-economicfactorsshouldbecon-sideredwhenunderstandingwhatimpactssurvivorreadinesstoreconcile.Ourfindingsindicatethat the psychological state of the génocidaire (e.g., level of shame and guilt) does not affectsurvivorreadinesstoreconcile.However, thefact thatbeliefsaboutoutgroupmembersbegantoaffectsurvivorreadinesstoreconcileagainafterco-raisingthecowsuggeststhattheintensityandnatureoftherelationshipbetweenthesurvivorandgénocidaire,aswellasexternalsocio-economicfactors,shouldbecarefullyconsideredinthedesignofpeacebuildinginterventions.

Traumatic stress

Another intrapersonal factor that appears to impact survivor readiness to reconcile istraumatic stress. Over 20 years after the genocide, survivors who reported higher levels oftraumaticstresswerealsolessreadytoreconcile,suggestingthattimealonenorone-timein-terventionscannotsufficientlydiminishtheadverseimpactthattraumacanhaveoninterper-sonalreconciliation.However,CFPintentionallyprovidedpsychoeducationtohelpmitigatetheimpactoftraumaandsupportedparticipantsovertime.Thismayexplainwhytraumaticstresssignificantlydecreasedforsurvivorsfrombaselinetoeachtimepoint(T2,T4,andT6),andwasnolongerassociatedwithreadinesstoreconcileattheconclusionoftheinterven-tion.Thisfindingisconsistentwithpreviousresearchstressingtheimportanceof integrat-ingmentalhealthandpeacebuildinginterventions.Forexample,existingliteratureindicatesthatsurvivorswhoexperiencehigherlevelsoftraumaticstressarealsomorelikelytoreportheightenedfeelingsofrevengeandhatredandbelesswillingtoforgiveorreconcile.62.Thus,addressingtraumaticstressonanindividualandcommunitylevelisimportanttoestablishinglastingpeace.63.

Thetimingatwhichtraumasymptomsandreadinesstoreconcilewasnolongersignificant(afterthethirdphase,co-raisingthecow)isalsonotable.Althoughdifferencesbetweendyadswhowererandomlyselectedtoreceiveacowversusthosewhoonlycontinuedtoparticipateinthecellgroupsinthecurrentstudywerenotcompared,onepossibleexplanationforthis

16 | PEACE & CHANGE

changeistheideathatlivelihoodinterventionsareempoweringinnature.64.CFPutilizedthelivelihood approach, which focused on the relationship between the resources available toanindividual,thestrategiestheyemploytoaccessthoseresources,andthesocialandinsti-tutionalsystemsinwhichtheyliveandwork.65.,66.,67.Inotherwords,thelivelihoodapproachemphasizestheuseofindividualagency.Theabilitytomakechoicesregardingone’sliveli-hood strategy is significantly impacted by psychosocial factors, including stress, emotionalstatus, locusofcontrolandhope.68.Livelihoodassistancehasbeenshowntoincreasehopeforindividuals,andhavethepotentialtobuildtheircapacitytocopeandrecoverfromlossesandextremestress,whichareoftencharacterizedbyviolenceinconflictsettings.AssurvivorsbuiltresiliencethroughparticipatinginCFP—botheconomicallyandpsychosocially—theymayhavegainednewtoolstoaddressfeelingsofhelplessnessthatoftenaccompanytraumaticstresssymptoms.Thiscouldleadtodecreasedvictimizationandblame,andthereforegreaterwillingnesstoreconcilewiththegénocidaire.Whileexistingliteraturetodatedoesnotspecif-icallyaddressifandhowlivelihoodprojects(e.g.,cow-raising)arepreferredtootherformsofintergroupcontact,peacebuildinginterventionsrootedinthecontacthypothesismaysignifi-cantlybenefitfromfutureresearchinthisarea.

Limitations

Giventhecomplexcontextofpost-genocideRwandaandthestructureofthecurrentstudy,ourfindingsshouldbeinterpretedwithcaution.Althoughexistingresearchoftenclearlydifferen-tiates between survivors and génocidaires, many held fluid roles during the genocide, actingindifferentcapacitiesdependingonvariouscontextualfactors.Duetoonlyusingquantitativemethods,thecurrentstudydoesnotoffernuancedperspectivesofeithersurvivorsorgénocid-aires,nordoesitaccountforconfoundingvariables(e.g.,differencesinpreexistingrelationships,génocidaire imprisonment, and premorbid conditions). Although the theory of perspective-takinghasbeenutilizedtointerpretthewaysinwhichgénocidaireshameandguiltmayhaveimpactedsurvivorreadinesstoreconcile,survivorperceptionsofgénocidaireshameandguiltwerenotdirectlymeasured.Additionally,thecurrentstudywasarelativelysmallsamplesizeandself-selecting,andfindingsfromgénocidairesmayalsobebiasedbasedonthefactthatsomewiththemeansandopportunityfledthecountryfollowingthegenocide.Thisresultedinasam-plethatmaynotberepresentativeoftheentirepopulation.69.Lastly,ourinterpretationsarelim-itedbythelackofinformationaboutthedegreetowhichparticipantsengagedwitheachphaseoftheintervention.Moreover,nothavingacomparisongroupwarrantsamoretemperedconclu-sionabouttheimpactofprogrammaticactivitiesonsurvivorsandgénocidaires.Notwithstandingtheselimitations,thecurrentstudyoffersauniqueperspectivebyfollowingthecourseofinten-tionalengagementbetweensurvivorsandthosewhodirectlyharmedthemortheirfamiliesoverthecourseof14months.

CONCLUSION

AccordingtoMoshman(2007),“genocidesandmasskillingsaremostlyperpetratedbyordinarypeo-pleplayingsocialrolesingroups,institutionsandpracticestowhichtheyarecommitted…Genocide,inotherwords,isnotsomuchacrimeofhateasacrimeofidentity.”70.Understandingthelonghis-toryofintergroupdynamicsinRwandacaninforminterventionsthatpromotesurvivorreadiness

| 17RECLAIMING HUMANITY TOGETHER

toreconcile.Resultsfromthecurrentstudyindicatethatthesuccessoftheseinitiativesmaydependuponeffortstopromotemeaningfulinteractionsthatdeepenandtransformrelationships.Thisin-cludesincreasingthedesireforoutgroupinteraction,fosteringrelationshipsthatcounterstereotypesandprejudicialbeliefs,andreducingtraumaticstresssymptomsandaddressingsharedunderstand-ingofcollectivetrauma—alessthanstraightforward,yetworthwhileundertaking.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThisworkwassupportedbyHowardUniversity,CollegeofArtsandSciencesundertheFacultyResearchGrantandPipelineWorldwideandtheChristianActionforReconciliationandSocialAssistance(CARSA).Wearegratefultotheparticipantsforentrustinguswiththeirstories—atestimonytotheirsteadfastbeliefinpeaceandhowtheythemselvescanbringitaboutinRwanda.WethankthecommittedstaffatCARSAforcoordinatingthestudyandconductingtheinter-viewswithexceptionalsensitivity.

NOTES 1. Hayner,Priscilla.2001.Unspeakable Truths: Confronting State terror and Atrocity.London,UK:Routledge.

2. Zorbas, Eugenia. 2009. “What Does Reconciliation after Genocide Mean? Public Transcripts and HiddenTranscriptsinPost-GenocideRwanda.”Journal of Genocide Research11(1):127–47.

3. Rothbart,Daniel,andKarinaV.Korostelina.2006.Identity, Morality, and Threat: Studies in Violent Conflict.Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks,386.

4. Buckley-Zistel,Susanne.“RememberingtoForget:ChosenAmnesiaasaStrategyforLocalCoexistenceinPost-GenocideRwanda.”Africa76:131–50,5.

5. Lederach,JohnPaul.1999.The Journey toward Reconciliation.Palestine,TX:HeraldPress,5.

6. Zorbas.“WhatDoesReconciliationafterGenocideMean?.”127–47.

7. Moshman,David.2007.“UsandThem:IdentityandGenocide.”Identity7(2):115–35.

8. Jean, Moise. 2007 The Rwandan Genocide: The True Motivations for Mass Killings. Atlanta, GA: EmoryUniversity:EmoryEndeavorsinWorldHistory.

9. King,Elisabeth.2014.From Classrooms to Conflict in Rwanda.NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.

10. Volkan,Vamik.2001.“TransgenerationalTransmissionsandChosenTraumas:AnAspectofLarge-GroupIdentity.”Group Analysis34(1):79–97,6.

11. Bayer, Christophe Pierre, Fionna Klasen, and Hubertus Adam. 2007. “Association of Trauma and PTSDSymptomswithOpennesstoReconciliationandFeelingsofRevengeamongFormerUgandanandCongoleseChildSoldiers.”Journal of American Medical Association298(5):555–59.

12. Pham, Phuong N., Harvey M. Weinstein, and Timothy Longman. 2004. “Trauma and Ptsd Symptomsin Rwanda: Implications for Attitudes toward Justice and Reconciliation.” Journal of American Medical Association292(5):602–12.

13. Scull,Nicholas,ChristopheD.Mbonyingabo,andMayriamKotb.2016.“TransformingOrdinaryPeopleintoKillers:APsychosocialExaminationofHutuParticipationintheTutsiGenocide.”Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology22(4):334–44.

14. Alexander,Michele,MarilynnB.Brewer,andRichardK.Hermann.1999.“ImagesandAffect:AFunctionalAnalysisofout-GroupStereotypes.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77(1):78–93.

15. Straus,Scott.2006.The Order of Genocide: Race, Power, and War in Rwanda.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

16. Woolf, Linda M., and Michael R. Hulsizer. 2005. “Psychosocial Roots of Genocide: Risk, Prevention, andIntervention.”Journal of Genocide Research7(1):101–28.

17. Barkan,Elazar,andAlexanderKarn.2006.Taking Wrongs Seriously: Apologies and Reconciliation.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

18 | PEACE & CHANGE

18. Brewer,MarilynnB.,andN.Miller.1984.Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation.NewYork,NY:AcademicPress.

19. BarkanandKarn,Taking Wrongs Seriously.

20. Scull,Mbonyingabo,andKotb,“TransformingOrdinaryPeopleintoKillers.”

21. Scull,Mbonyingabo,andKotb,“TransformingOrdinaryPeopleintoKillers.”

22. Staub, Ervin, Laurie Anne Pearlman, Alexandra Gubin, and Athanase Hagengimana. 2005. “Healing,Reconciliation,ForgivingandthePreventionofViolenceafterGenocideorMassKilling:AnInterventionandIt'sExperimentalEvaluationinRwanda.”Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology24(3):297–334.

23. Okimoto,TylerG.,andMichaelWenzel.2009.“PunishmentasRestorationofGroupandOffenderValuesFollowingaTransgression:ValueConsensusthroughSymbolicLabellingandOffenderReform.”European Journal of Social Psychology39(3):346–67.

24. SimanTov-Nachlieli, Ilanit, Nurit Shnabel, and Arie Nadler. 2013. “Individuals’ and Groups’ Motivationto Restore Their Impaired Identity Dimensions Following Conflicts: Evidence and Implications.” Social Psychology44(2):129–37.

25. Berndsen,Mariëtte,MichaelWenzel,EmmaF.Thomas,andBreeannaNoske.2018.“IFeelYouFeelWhatIFeel:PerceivedPerspective-TakingPromotesVictims'ConciliatoryAttitudesBecauseofInferredEmotionsintheOffender.”European Journal of Social Psychology48(2):O103–O20,p.104

26. Kanyangara,Patrick,BernardRimé,DarioPaez,andVincentYzerbyt.2014.“Trust,IndividualGuilt,CollectiveGuiltandDispositionstowardReconciliationamongRwandanSurvivorsandPrisonersbeforeandafterTheirParticipationinPostgenocideGacacaCourtsinRwanda.”Journal of Social and Political Psychology2(1):401–16.

27. Dovidio,JohnF.,SamuelE.Gaertner,KerryKawakami,andGordonHodson.2002.“WhyCan'tWeJustGetAlong?InterpersonalBiasesandInterracialDistrust.”Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology8(2):88–102.

28. Nadler, Arie, and Ido Liviatan. 2006. “Intergroup Reconciliation: Effects of Adversary's Expressions ofEmpathy,Responsibility,andRecipients'Trust.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin32(4):459–70.

29. deHooge,IlonaE.,SegerM.Breugelmans,andMarcelZeelenberg.2008.“NotSoUglyafterAll:WhenShameActsasaCommitmentDevice.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology95(4):933–43.

30. ElizaAhmed,E.,NathanHarris,JohnBraithwaite,andValerieBraithwaite.2001.Shame Management through Reintegration.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

31. Fisher,MickieL.,andJulieJ.Exline.2010.“MovingtowardSelf-Forgiveness:RemovingBarriersRelatedtoShame,Guilt,andRegret.”Social and Personality Psychology Compass4(8):548–58.

32. Tangney,JunePrice,AngelaL.Boone,andRondaDearing.2005.“ForgivingtheSelf:ConceptualIssuesandEmpiricalFindings.”InHandbook of Forgiveness.NewYork:Routledge.

33. Staub, Pearlman, Gubin and Hagengimana. “Healing, Reconciliation, Forgiving and the Prevention ofViolenceafterGenocideorMassKilling.”

34. Woodyatt, Lydia, and MichaelWenzel. 2014. “A Needs-Based Perspective on Self-Forgiveness: AddressingThreattoMoralIdentityasaMeansofEncouragingInterpersonalandIntrapersonalRestoration.”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology50:125–35.

35. Berry, Jack W., Everett L. Worthington, Les Parrott, Lynn E. O’Connor, and Nathaniel G. Wade. 2001.“Dispositional Forgivingness: Development and Construct Validity of the Transgression Narrative Test ofForgivingness(Tntf).”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin27(10):1277–90.

36. Staub, Pearlman, Gubin and Hagengimana, “Healing, Reconciliation, Forgiving and the Prevention ofViolenceafterGenocideorMassKilling.”

37. Hicks,Donna.2011.Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

38. WoodyattandWenzel,“ANeeds-BasedPerspectiveonSelf-Forgiveness.”

39. Enright,Robert.1996.“CounselingwithintheForgivenessTriad:OnForgiving,ReceivingForgiveness,andSelf-Forgiveness.”Counseling and Values40(2):107–26,p.7.

| 19RECLAIMING HUMANITY TOGETHER

40. Wohl, Michael, Lise DeShea, and Rebekah L. Wahkinney. 2008. “Looking Within: Measuring State Self-ForgivenessandItsRelationshiptoPsychologicalWell-Being.”Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science40(1):1–10:1.

41. WoodyattandWenzel.“ANeeds-BasedPerspectiveonSelf-Forgiveness.”

42. Kang,Ezer,DarcieA.P.Delzell,ChristopheMbonyingabo,andSylvestreNgendahayo.2016.“Exposuretothe1994GenocideinRwandaandSurvivorAttitudestowardGénocidaires:A20-YearPostscript.”Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology22(4):356–66.

43. Kang, Ezer, Darcie A.P. Delzell, Jordan Snyder, Grace K. Mwemere, and Christophe Mbonyingabo. 2020.“A Winding Road to Peace Building: Longitudinal Outcomes of a Peace Intervention for Survivors andGénocidairesofthe1994GenocideagainsttheTutsiinRwanda.”American Journal of Community Psychology66(1–2):39–52.

44. Allport,GordonW.1954.The Nature of Prejudice.Boston,MA:Addison-Wesley.

45. Hewstone,Miles,andRupertBrown.1986. “Contact IsNotEnough:An IntergroupPerspectiveon the'ContactHypothesis’.”InContact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters.Cambridge,MA:BasilBlackwell,1–44.

46. Pettigrew,ThomasF.,1998.“IntergroupContactTheory.”Annual Review of Psychology49:65–85.

47. Scacco,Alexandra,andShanaS.Warren.2018.“CanSocialContactReducePrejudiceandDiscrimination?EvidencefromaFieldExperimentinNigeria.”The American Political Science Review112(3):654–77.

48. Sonderegger, Robi, Sacha Rombouts, Benson Ocen, and Reyelle McKeever. 2011. “Trauma RehabilitationforWar-AffectedPersonsinNorthernUganda:APilotEvaluationoftheEmpowerProgramme.”The British Journal of Clinical Psychology / The British Psychological Society50:234–49.

49. Allport,The Nature of Prejudice.

50. Kang, Delzell, Mbonyingabo, and Ngendahayo. “Exposure to the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda and SurvivorAttitudestowardGénocidaires.”

51. Heim,Lale,andSusanneSchaal.2014.“RatesandPredictorsofMentalStressinRwanda:InvestigatingtheImpact of Gender, Persecution, Readiness to Reconcile and ReligiosityVia a Structural Equation Model.”International Journal of Mental Health Systems8:37.

52. Scull,Mbonyingabo,andKotb,“TransformingOrdinaryPeopleintoKillers.”

53. Staub, Pearlman, Gubin and Hagengimana. “Healing, Reconciliation, Forgiving and the Prevention ofViolenceafterGenocideorMassKilling.”

54. Gordijn,Ernestine,GillianFinchilescu,LouiseBrix,NienkeWijnants,WillemKoomen.2008.“TheInfluenceofPrejudiceandSteretoypesonAnticipatedAffect:FeelingsaboutaPotentiallyNegativeInteractionwithAnotherEthnicGroup.”SouthAfricanJournalofPsychology38(4).

55. Paluck, Elizabeth Levy. 2009. “Reducing Intergroup Prejudice and Conflict Using the Media: A FieldExperimentinRwanda.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology96(3):574–87.

56. Rimé,Bernard,PatrickKanyangara,VincentYzerbyt,andDarioPaez.2011.“TheImpactofGacacaTribunalsin Rwanda: Psychosocial Effects of Participation in aTruth and Reconciliation Process after a Genocide.”European Journal of Social Psychology41(6):695–706.

57. Marschall,D.,J.Sanftner,andJP.Tangney.1994.The State Shame and Guilt Scale.Fairfax,VA:GeorgeMasonUniversity.

58. Wohl,DeShea,andWahkinney,“LookingWithin.”

59. Preacher,KristopherJ.,andAndrewF.Hayes.2008.“AsymptoticandResamplingStrategiesforAssessingandComparingIndirectEffectsinMultipleMediatorModels.”Behavior Research Methods40(3):879–91.

60. Kang,Delzell,Snyder,Mwemere,andMbonyingabo,“AWindingRoadtoPeaceBuilding.”

61. Pham,Weinstein,andLongman,“TraumaandPtsdSymptomsinRwanda.”

62. Field, Nigel P., and Sotheara Chhim. 2008. “Desire for Revenge and Attitudes toward the Khmer RougeTribunalamongCambodians.”Journal of Loss and Trauma13(4):352–72.

20 | PEACE & CHANGE

63. Kumar,Samhita,andAlysWillman.2016.“HealingInvisibleWoundsandRebuildingLivelihoods:EmergingLessons for Combining Livelihood and Psychosocial Support in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Settings.”Journal of Public Health Policy37(Suppl1):32–50.

64. Ramkumar, S., S.V.N. Rao, and Kevin Waldie. 2004. “Dairy Cattle Rearing by Landless Rural Women inPondicherry:APathtoEmpowerment.”Indian Journal of Gender Studies11(2):205–22.

65. Ellis,Frank.2000.“TheDeterminantsofRuralLivelihoodDiversificationinDevelopingCountries.”Journal of Agricultural Economics51(2):289–302.

66. Bird,Kate,andAndrewShepherd.2003.“LivelihoodsandChronicPovertyinSemi-AridZimbabwe.”World Development31:591–610.

67. Chambers,Robert.1995.“PovertyandLivelihoods:WhoseRealityCounts?”Environment and Urbanization7(1):173–204.

68. Ziveri,Davide,ShirinKiani,andMelanieBroquet.2019.“TheImpactofPsychosocialSupportonWell-BeingandAgencywithinanInclusiveLivelihoodProgramme.”Article.Intervention17(1):86–95.

69. Loyle, Cyanne E., and Christian Davenport. 2020. “Some Left to Tell the Tale: Finding Perpetrators andUnderstandingViolenceinRwanda.”Journal of Peace Research57(4):507–20.

70. Moshman,“UsandThem,”118.

How to cite this article: KindlerC,MbonyingaboC,KarekeziG,KangE.Reclaiminghumanitytogether:Theimpactofintra-andinterpersonalfactorsonsurvivorreadinesstoreconcileinpost-genocideRwanda.PeaceChange.2022;00:1–20.https://doi.org/10.1111/pech.12525