How can peaceful coexistence be achieved in a society? How can all people in a society participate equally in public and social life? These are the questions addressed by the international Shared Society program. We discuss questions, challenges and dilemmas in the development of shared societies with three initiators of the program. How do societies deal with identity-based divisions and conflicts between different groups? Does this all sound theoretical and abstract? But it's not at all: The proof is our conversation with Clem McCartney from the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland and Ran Kuttner from the University of Haifa in Israel, who share their experiences with us and show us what we too can do for a shared society through their practical examples.
The interview is part of our Focus on Peace podcast. We have prepared the German translation of the English-language podcast episode for you here: If you prefer to listen to the interview, click here. You can access the login-free streaming platform
MelanieClem, you coined the concept of 'Shared Society' in its current form. Can you tell us a bit about how and in what context the concept came about?
Clem: Well, I think that the idea of a 'Shared Society' has probably been around for as long as there have been people. But in 2007 I was asked to help coordinate the development of a project that looked at the political dimensions and how to deal with social exclusion. The project was coordinated by the Club de Madrid, an organization of former presidents and prime ministers, and funded by the Alan B. Slifka Foundation. Alan put a lot of time and effort into working on issues of social coexistence and bringing people closer together. But he was concerned that his work was not having much of a positive impact on preventing social exclusion. So we developed this program and turned the rather negative issue of social exclusion into something positive, which we then called a 'Shared Society'. So it actually started by trying to address the issue of social exclusion and then broadening our view and looking at how we can create a shared society at all levels, not just at the interpersonal level, but also between groups such as at the national, political and economic levels.
Rebecca: You mentioned the term social exclusion. Perhaps you could briefly explain to our listeners what exactly you mean by social exclusion?
Clem: Well, in every society, actually in most societies, some people are left out and excluded. Some people have more influence, more power and more resources than others. Some people are on the margins of society. There can be many reasons for this, religious reasons or ethnicity, maybe even where they live within society, some people live in a remote part of the country. So basically, one or more groups have power and they divide this power among themselves, giving the other groups and people the impression that they don't matter. This creates a lot of problems for the people who are marginalized. But more importantly, it creates problems for society as a whole because the resources of marginalized people are wasted and they are unhappy and dissatisfied. As a result, marginalized people can become a challenge to the status quo, if you like, which could end in conflict and violent confrontation. So our interest was mainly in trying to influence how people conceptualize a society that we call a 'Shared Society'.
Rebecca: And how was this vision received by the people or the prime ministers* or presidents*?
Clem: Well, it's a bit like grandma's apple pie, you can't talk badly about it. But as I just said, we humans are very good at coming up with reasons not to actively advocate for a shared society. But to really come out publicly and say that a shared society is generally not a good idea, almost nobody does. There may only be one or two countries in the world that would say: "We don't care about any of that, we don't want any of that." And of course there are some countries where they might not be committed to it on a very high scale and might say, "You know, these indigenous people are a problem, they should go somewhere else, they're just holding our society back because they don't want to join the majority society". I don't want to name names, but I can think of at least one or two countries where people talk like that these days. Nevertheless, most people would say that it would be nice if we could bring everyone together and create a shared society where everyone belongs. In reality, however, many people don't want to actively work towards this. So you have to somehow explain to them the problems they face and how they could solve those problems by becoming more inclusive, by recognizing other people and other groups, by including others in decision making, by creating opportunities for others. All the things that it takes for people to feel like they belong to society and society belongs to them.
Melanie: Ran, you also use the concept in the Israeli context, here especially in the context of Givat Haviva's educational work. How did you learn about the concept?
Ran: I wouldn't say that this is just about educational work, so I would like to touch on a few important points which Clem has already mentioned. For example, the 'shared society' as a counter to social exclusion and the structural level, which can be political or economic and is more than just a dynamic between groups. Also in the Israeli context, you could say that the move away from coexistence, which was once actually very fashionable, and not just in Israel, but in the whole field of academia, including in the US. In the Israeli context, there was a certain unease on the part of the population, as they felt that they were no longer getting anywhere with the concept of coexistence, as they had been working on the concept of coexistence for many years. For example, in the form of intergroup dialogues between Jews and Arabs. The unease came from the fact that they had the feeling that nothing fundamental had changed despite attempts at dialog. They had the impression that at the end of the day, everyone goes back to their own environment, their own political and economic situation, and nothing really changes. Clem talked about creating opportunities. So if you are on the more privileged side, you were obviously born into a society or a part or a segment of society where you have more opportunities than others. The Arabs, for example, have found it frustrating that the Jewish population wanted to get to know the Arabs better, but did not want to actively work to change some fundamental aspects of the social structure and access to power. It is important to note here that if there is a shift towards a 'Shared Society', it is also in the name of political and economic change, which means that there are also structural gaps and blind spots that need to be addressed and influenced that lead to greater marginalization faced by Arabs and perhaps other groups as well.
Rebecca: To be a bit more specific, you talked about the co-construction of identities and I imagine that especially in conflict situations identity is a very contested aspect. That's why the co-construction of identity seems very difficult to me. So how do you do this in practice? How do you put it into practice?
Clem: The concept of 'Shared Society' is not necessarily widespread. A 'shared identity' would speak to the complexity of being 'one' and 'many' at the same time. What is important here is that I do not want to turn this 'Shared Identity' into a blended identity, nor do I find that desirable. For example, if you lose yourself in a larger whole, that could lead to a collectivism that we know from fascist movements that were close to this kind of collectivism. So I wouldn't go that far with my definition of 'shared society'. I would say that it should preserve both the generality of the common aspect, but also diversity and respect for diversity. But to your question about the concrete: The concrete exists in practice and thus transcends the theoretical. In my opinion, this is the first part of a long-term joint social project and process, which takes a lot of time. Five years, for example, is only a fleeting moment and only lays the foundation for the development of a partnership in the true sense of the word. If we have more time, then we could also enter into a dialog about our identity as Jews and Arabs. This dialog could address questions such as "How do we understand Israel's identity? Should it have symbols from the Jewish tradition or from both traditions?" And so on. These are all questions that come up. All of these questions bring points of friction. The ability to have an early dialog on such difficult questions is almost impossible. Why? Because as humans, in times of conflict, we tend to close ourselves off in our secure, fixed sense of self and identity, where we feel we belong. And at this point, we also turn to our group identity. Right? And then it's about the "in-group" versus the "out-group" and that makes the dialog more difficult. It's then more of a debate or more of a conflict between the two groups. That's why, in practice, we start with more pragmatic aspects. For example, with common interests and by working on concrete problems between the neighboring Jewish and Arab communities, such as the development of economic infrastructure. And then, as we carry out the projects in which the benefits of cooperation between the communities come to light, the ability to work together is gradually developed. The ability to see the other with less suspicious eyes and to move into deeper and more fundamental issues. We learn, if we want, how to synchronize, we learn how to dance together. We learn how to be together in a kind of movement that makes sense and that gives a flow that didn't exist at the beginning, because of the different mentalities, the different cultures, because of the mistrust. But gradually, very slowly, we are moving towards the ability to deal with the bigger questions of identity itself.
MelanieTo be more specific, Ran, you designed and implemented programs for Givat Haviva and worked as a facilitator. Could you take us into your everyday life?
Ran: Of course!
Melanie: What does an ordinary working day look like for you when you work on 'Shared Societies' in Israel?
Ran: First of all, it's important to wake up in the morning, take a deep breath and say be patient today because things don't necessarily happen at the pace or speed that you would want them to. Especially if you come from an academic background, you know, on a theoretical level things are always very distinguished, very clear, orderly and they make sense. In practice, things are different. John Lennon once said that life is what happens to you while you're too busy making other plans. I find this very apt, especially in the Israeli reality. These are hard times to bring society closer together and to help build a common society. There are some political considerations and things that happen outside of our work but influence it and we need to be aware of that. In addition, we need to develop a sense of these things and patience and empathy for the pace and abilities of people to move forward. We also need to be patient, because when we work with high-level officials, mayors, or department and community leaders like the environmental quality community or city government engineers, they usually have other things on their priority lists that are more urgent. Building a 'Shared Society' is not the first thought they have in the morning and say, "This is what we need to do today." They have a long list of other things to do and building a Shared Society usually comes further down that list. But again, hopefully in three or four years we'll be able to embed the idea of a Shared Society in the work of these people, also so that they can embrace the idea of a Shared Society. But sometimes we want more than the municipalities themselves, and then we have to hold back and not push too hard so as not to overburden them. This also shows how important it is to be patient and to be aware of what is and isn't possible at any given moment. In other words, a certain pragmatism, which does not necessarily have to be idealistic. Pragmatism should help to identify interests and how joint work can serve people's interests in such a way that they want to actively participate and get involved. In addition, it is about finding intelligent and smart ways to weave into this work a reflectiveness that is necessary to see the difficulties, the challenges that diversity, mistrust, cultural differences bring, and how we can overcome these barriers so that the next time we come together it is easier for us. And it's about carrying out the work and also supporting others in doing so. For example, in environmental work, when we have an opening ceremony for a riverbed or a promenade that both communities have worked on, we celebrate these ceremonies with the politicians and with the communities. These ceremonies are important because they send out the signal that the joint work makes sense. I remember once a deputy mayor, an Arab deputy mayor, saying to me: "Normally, when I see these huge yellow bulldozers at work, my heart stops for a moment because I know they are here to destroy something. Normally, in this context, it's about houses built without permission in Arab communities. And now suddenly I've been driving on this road for a few months and I see these caterpillars and I know that they are here to develop this promenade and to work on the infrastructure of our communities. I'm gradually learning to make friends with the sight of these caterpillars." That's a huge change and a huge step forward. It's a huge change on an emotional and instinctive level. Changing your mindset to be able to say that the government or the organizations that come from the government are here to build, not to destroy, that they are here to help. That is part of our work together. That's a success and I would say that my role after the ceremony is to make sure that we're not just there to just applaud and pat ourselves on the back, but that we take that attitude into our daily work and take it to the next level of work that way.
Rebecca: What I take away from this very, very inspiring example is that the concept of 'Shared Society' is also a lot about the integration of different aspects, like economic progress or the infrastructure development that you talked about. And that such aspects also contribute to the 'Shared Society' or to the resolution of a conflict or to a paradigm shift in the way people look at a certain environment or a certain conflict.
Ran: That's true. Because, for example, when Jewish and Arab neighboring communities work together to develop a new industrial park, the Jewish community usually has more connections, they know how to work with government officials, how to do certain organizational things. So as these different communities work together and Arabs and Jews work side by side, they develop a relationship with each other and the ability to work together. For example, we noticed that after one project was completed, the Arab community moved forward with another project more smoothly, together with the government officials, before they didn't know exactly how to work with them. I just want to mention one more example where we include the dimension of power and resources and resource allocation. For example, if we build an industrial park and the Arab community suddenly understands that this is a joint project where all tasks and duties are shared equally, that it is not mainly about revenue for the Jewish community because the industrial park is to be developed on land that officially belongs to the Jewish community. They understand that through a partnership they also have a say and a right to the revenue and that's not always easy, but it's a huge step.
Rebecca: All three of you work in the 'Shared Society' program and all three of you come from different backgrounds, or work in different contexts. Ran, you've just given us an example from your context. So could you, Clem and Melanie, give an example or two from your working contexts, from Northern Ireland and Germany and how your projects are working towards a Shared Society?
Clem: Yes, first of all I would like to mention that these things, these problems of coexistence, are being addressed and solved day by day in the public space. It's not just because of the intention of people like us or other key players and it's not just in our country or our context. For example, if you look at 'Black Lives Matter' in the United States, there's a certain tension between the opposing fronts because it's about what kind of society American citizens want to live in. And the people, either on the Black Lives Matter side or on the other side opposing the movement, are very focused on their own needs and very preoccupied with their own needs. But then there's another group of people who are working for a more inclusive society, what we might call a shared society, and it's this ongoing debate that will ultimately decide what kind of society we're going to live in and that we can name things that are happening around us. But we also need to think about the events and things that we ourselves can take a stand on or share our point of view on. And how we can support the actors in the situations so that they can evaluate whether what they are doing is actually helping to create a functioning and more inclusive society for all, or whether they would create an even more polarized, even more divided society, which would be very problematic in the long run. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I have mainly worked on ideas that pursue the goal of a 'Shared Society' without naming them as such. And I've incorporated a lot of that work into my thinking about the concept of shared society. We worked a lot with the communities and tried to help them resolve the tensions between them because Northern Ireland was in an active conflict situation at the time. We also realized, for example, that there needed to be an early warning system to indicate when a situation might get out of control and escalate. Or, for example, giving different communities access to each other so that they had a common understanding of what was happening and that they could use this knowledge to assess when a situation had the potential to get out of control. We also had other activities that focused on developing self-confidence and self-esteem within the communities. Because it's very important that we have a positive relationship with ourselves and our identity so that we can reach out and connect with other communities. We have tried to do this in an inclusive way that involves everyone, because when you talk about the idea of 'shared society', it also involves looking at your own actions and the impact they have on other aspects of society. It's also important here that it's not just about boosting a group's self-esteem, but how they can boost their self-esteem by interacting with another group. So it's about looking outwards rather than just looking inwards at your own group and community. Based on this, we have developed a guide to good practice, where many strategies and approaches can be found. This guide also includes concrete examples from different countries, their approaches to a shared society and what steps they have already taken towards a shared society. But the most important thing is that this is not just about a single activity, but a holistic and coherent approach that we are trying to bring here. Whether it's about two communities with 5,000 inhabitants each working to prevent tensions from escalating further or whether it's about an entire country, such as the USA, where it is necessary to develop a concept that enables people to live together and feel comfortable. In general, we need a multidimensional, coherent approach that also takes into account the impact of our actions on the overall vision of the future.
Melanie: In Germany, we have been confronted with increasing xenophobia and growing anti-Semitism in recent years. We can see this in the results of political elections on the one hand, but also in the growing numbers of violence against migrants. When we launched the project together with Givat Haviva and Clem McCartney a few years ago, we decided to focus on the area of migration and integration. In addition, we asked the Advisory Council for Migration and Integration of the City of Trier, our practical partner, to initiate some projects with us. We are trying to strengthen the participation and equality of migrants in the city of Trier and support the city of Trier in its plan for a 'Shared Society'.
Rebecca: I can imagine that there are many people who support this project, but also that there might be some people who don't approve of it and don't want to support it. Do you also encounter resistance to such a project on a political or social level?
Melanie: I would say that there is no resistance from the political side. I think that there is still a general consensus at the moment that supporting the idea of a shared society in Germany and campaigning for it is a positive thing. Of course, there is the AfD, which has gained in importance and support in recent years. But we don't have any problems with that in our project at the moment. Generally speaking, we don't have a problem with people opposing the idea or concept of the 'Shared Society'. But at the moment it's difficult to find people who are more committed to a shared society and the project. So I think on a political level it's more neutral at the moment, but it's hard to find people who want to get actively involved in the project.
Rebecca: My last question for today is for all of you. Clem mentioned that most of the projects are implemented without specifically using the term 'shared society', but that they are all working towards the same goal. So how could society in general, or perhaps organizations that our listeners are involved in, support actors who are working towards a shared society? Also to promote their potential for peace. So how can they support these projects in their goal of a stronger shared society in their respective contexts?
Clem: Yes, I think that in my own country and in many other countries there are a lot of activities that I would now say are trying to positively influence inter-group relations and inter-community relations, but the problem with that is that they are not looking at the general imbalances that exist in society, which are particularly important for the marginalized groups. And the less marginalized, or other, communities often don't see a problem because they are not affected. As Ran said earlier, there are people who say: "Wouldn't it be nice if other people could just follow the same path as us and do things the way we do them". That's one of the most important starting points for change, so I would say that you or we can support projects and people who are working towards a shared society more passively and help them realize that they need to tackle the bigger and more difficult issues as well. The people on the frontline of these conflicts are often only too willing to face them and tackle them. But many other people just want a quiet life and don't want to deal with complex and difficult issues. I think it's also very important that we involve politicians, because they have the ability to make the things we talk about happen. They also have the ability to act in a way that divides and polarizes our society. You can often observe that there are people whose interest is to think and act in "us" and "them" categories, either for the sake of political power or to favor their own group or community. And we generally also easily fall into this trap of engaging in this kind of division. That's why I think it's very important that all of us who care about inter-group and inter-community relations also focus on how we can advocate for this at the political level, not just at the community or inter-community level. Of course, politicians reflect the community and communities reflect politics. So we need to work on both.
Ran: I would like to respond to your question about our current situation. Of course, these are challenging times with the Covid pandemic hitting us all over the world and I think it's a start to raise your hand and ask: "Is our society resilient?". Resilience is a term that is very popular these days and it pretty much captures the strength of a society that is coping relatively well with the current situation. Here I believe that this relates to many aspects of resilience and that social resilience can and must be addressed for various reasons. I would therefore like to highlight the concept of social cohesion and emphasize the importance of developing social cohesion as an essential component, or rather, as a necessary prerequisite for a resilient society. If we accept the fact that social cohesion and social capital are what is needed to make a society resilient, then we can stop and ask ourselves: "Where are we lacking this kind of cohesion in society in these difficult times?" In Israel, for example, we conducted a survey not so long ago in April, during the first Covid-19 lockdown. We wanted to find out about people's resilience at a personal, communal, regional and national level, about their resilience. And we also saw the paradox there that people said they think they would be more resilient if society was more inclusive and involved multiple groups, rather than just connecting neighboring communities or groups within a community. They said it would make them feel more comfortable and safe, but at the same time, they also said they don't think it's possible. When they look at the current social conditions, they tend to see the inability or impossibility of such cohesion. Such statements should set off warning lights in our country. I was also invited to the Israeli parliament to talk about how to deal with the coronavirus. There I mentioned, very carefully, that people have expressed a desire for more social cohesion and better relations between groups and that they would probably also feel better and happier with more cohesion and at the same time they say they believe it is impossible or it is not possible at the moment. And this is not about measures that have to be taken first thing in the morning. Obviously, with the current Covid-19 situation, there are other things that are more important, but we should remember in easier times, when the Covid-19 pandemic is over, and really think about how we can prepare ourselves as a society for further extreme situations in order to be more resilient and resilient to the next crises and to be better able to cope with them. The point of view I take for building a common society is that we need to make sure we develop this coherence at municipal, inter-municipal, regional and national level. And there is so much that can be done. We have written a long document with practical recommendations. We hope that these recommendations will make people listen and implement these things once the crisis is over.
Clem: If I could contribute anything else? Ran just pointed out to me in the context of the Covid pandemic that the societies that have had the most difficulty in finding a coherent approach to fighting the virus are the ones that are most characterized by a 'me me me ' attitude, a libertarian attitude. "I don't want to wear a mask. I don't want to keep my distance from other people. I want to do what I want to do". In such a society, people are not obliged to each other. And yet a society doesn't function without mutual obligations, people are obliged to each other in a shared society. And I think that Covid therefore offers us the opportunity to point out the weaknesses of an individualistic society, based on societies in which people are willing to work together for the common good.
Ran: I couldn't agree more and would say that the Covid pandemic is helping us to realize the notion of interdependence on the ground. We've talked about the concept of interdependence before, and here we have a very concrete, existential example, not a theory, not abstract concepts, but rather what it's like when the neighboring community, the neighboring group doesn't follow the instructions and doesn't want to wear masks and they put me or others in danger. And this is a systemic perspective, a holistic perspective in motion, because one's own actions can have ripple effects and impact on others. And unfortunately, Israeli society is a very fragmented society, which is far from being a shared society. So I think that's the main reason why we are in such a difficult situation in the Covid pandemic, when you look at the number of infected people per million inhabitants in Israel.
Rebecca: Melanie, would you like to add anything else?
Melanie: Yes, I think the most important thing for us at the Peace Academy at the moment is to raise awareness of the fact that we are confronted with a growing polarization of society in Germany. Yesterday I held a workshop with three school classes and some teachers and I showed the young people the map of the conflict barometer. On this map, each country is colored, from grey to black, depending on whether and how many political conflicts or wars are taking place there. And I think almost everyone in the classroom was quite surprised that Germany was not gray. They were surprised because they weren't aware that there is a lot of right-wing violence and structural violence in Germany at the moment. So I think the most important thing now is to raise awareness that something is going on and that we need a project like 'Shared Society'. This is where I think we need to start our work now.
Rebecca: I think that's a good closing word for our episode today. Thank you so much, Melanie, for hosting the episode with me. And thank you, Clem and Ran, for being our guests today.
Ran: Thank you so much!
Clem: Nothing to thank, thank you!
You can find more information about the Shared Society and our interview partners on the Shared Society website.