Youth Peacebuilding: Music, Gender, and Change

Chapter 4: Building Peace Through a Musical Dialogue

71 4 Building Peace Through a Musical Dialogue In recent years, many scholars of peace studies have agreed that dialogue is crucial to building peace and responding to global problems.1 However, important questions remain about the meanings and parameters of dialogue and how it might take place. Etymologically, the term is of Greek origin, deriving from dia (“through”) and logos (“the word” or “meaning”).2 Bohm argues that this conjunction of terms brings to mind “a stream of meaning flowing among and through two or more, out of which will emerge some new understanding, something creative.” While this could lend itself to many interpretations in peacebuilding, dialogue is most often associated with a verbal process,3 including conversation and negotiation. Nonetheless , it is likely that other ways of conducting dialogue exist and that these can also be mobilized for peacebuilding purposes. Indeed, our understandings of dialogue in the peace studies field need broadening to be more inclusive of those, including youth, who might be more willing or able to participate in peacebuilding through alternative modes of dialogue. In this chapter I explore the possibilities of music as an alternative method for youth to engage in a dialogue for peace. Given its appeal and accessibility to young people, music may offer an appropriate way to engage youth in creating new dialogues for peace and thus encouraging the formation of a culture of peace. To be clear, I am not suggesting that music is some 72 Youth Peacebuilding instant fix to alleviate all the issues associated with spoken dialogue . Rather, its addition to the repertoire of dialogue for peacebuilding may aid in opening up more spaces for participation by offering alternative frameworks for expressing, sharing , and creating meaning. In the peacebuilding context, the term “dialogue” tends to be used to connote formal political negotiations taking place in the international arena. This frequently involves two or more parties talking to each other to communicate their issues and directly address their differences through workshops, diplomacy , and/or conferences. The process is usually framed as a kind of debate or contest of ideas, which may certainly have a role to play in peacebuilding. At the same time, some scholars suggest that dialogue can be conducted in a less antagonistic framework that encourages other ways of talking. Scholars supporting narrative approaches to reconciliation see the oral “telling” and “retelling” of stories as vital to rebuilding society after conflict.4 For example, according to Senehi and Byrne’s research, storytelling connects people across the peace process in divided societies such as Northern Ireland.5 The stories of each participant are accorded value, rather than seeking to have one viewpoint eventually triumph over another. Participants are encouraged to construct new narratives or stories together in order to transform their conflict. Narrative approaches are thus based on a different view of dialogue, yet they also remain focused on speech. Oral dialogue can be valuable, but several challenges exist . For example, frameworks that envision dialogue as a tool for “resolving” conflict by creating shared meaning may leave no room for ongoing contradiction in the views of parties to a conflict.6 Parties may find some issues impossible to agree on. In short, frameworks that seek to use verbal dialogue to create a shared story may offer little utility in some aspects of conflict.7 Likewise, engaging authentically in dialogue requires acknowledging that conflict will remain. So, instead of being solely about pursuing mutual agreement, dialogue can also be envisioned as way of building understanding and seeking Building Peace Through a Musical Dialogue 73 ways of living with difference that do not hinge on resolving all issues. Given the limits of language, conceptualizing dialogue as only comprised of verbal processes also raises serious issues of inclusivity. For one thing, verbal dialogue places significantly different expectations on the participants. Parties from marginalized cultural and language groups may find their experiences and views inexpressible in the dominant language. They may remain silent, especially when the dialogue is conducted on such terms.8 When it comes to verbal discussions, some modes of communication tend to be privileged over others, reflecting existing power arrangements, which may be unjust. For example, certain discourses are accorded privilege, and the use of related “legitimate language” is seen as requisite for engaging in discussion.9 But legitimacy is frequently based on what is dominant, so some people experience unfair difficulties in getting meanings across in situations...