Identity-based disputes constitute a central component of intractable conflict. Drawing from various sources of social psychology, this paper illustrates how the concept of identity affects group behavior. Research shows that the social construction of a group identity, which involves definitions of “us” and “them,” and the delineation of artificial boundaries separating the ingroup and outgroups, often leads to ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice. This division becomes a potential breeding ground for discriminatory behavior and conflict, and this paper endeavors to examine the reasons behind the distinction between violent and non-violent conflict. A potent source of group mobilization, commonly linked to escalation of violence, is the perceived threat to the identity of a group. However, “perception,” being subjective, is susceptible to politicization and often allows elites to mobilize a group to action by pandering to their fear of the outgroups. Yet, if parties are to move towards reconciliation and bring an end of the cycle of violence, healing must first take place. At this stage, open communication is crucial, as it allows parties to develop empathy, build trust, and work towards sustainable collaboration through conflict resolution mechanisms that support active learning and, thus, a gradual move towards sustainable peace.

Download Article as a PDF