ABSTRACT
The dynamic process underpinning shifts in personal and/or group understandings of perceived categories of reality can be illustrated though an analysis of speech acts, storylines and positions. Using positioning theory, narrative analysis and a conceptualization of agency developed by Emirbayer and Mische (1998), this chapter captures moments of change as individuals begin to challenge a hegemonic narrative that is anchored in a specific storyline and oppositional qualities of the other. I explore the lived experiences of individuals1 who served in Iraq, but who, over the course of time, began to question their previous thought patterns and belief systems. The personal experiences of those who lived the reality of the dominant narrative patterns in Iraq narrowed the gap between belief and experience. This process, for the participants in this chapter, resulted in the personal construction of a counternarrative, which challenged the presenting narrative’s identification of the enemy, the characterizations of self and other, the mission and the cultural assumptions underpinning it that provided the moral justification and legitimacy of the war. The conflict resolution practice of narrative facilitation stems from the assumption that perspectives can be transformed by expanding narratives. Often, presenting narratives are “skinny and trivial” (Cobb 2005) and therefore cannot respond to complexities. The objective of narrative facilitation is to increase complexity through multiple voices, circular plots and fluid rather than static characters. In this chapter I explore the dynamic process of narrative expansion experienced by the soldiers. Once deployed to Iraq, the narratives grew more complex. More voices were added – particularly voices of Iraqi soldiers, civilians and American military personnel. The linear storyline grew more circular and the fixed character roles fell apart (Cobb 2005; Winslade and Monk 2001). As these changes occurred, in most cases perceptions of the cultural myths that anchored the presenting narrative and in some cases a sense of identity began to change as well. Bahktin (as cited in Cobb 2005) argues that the world’s categories and structures are determined through dialogic processes; we interactively make meanings of experiences as we recount such experiences. A “turning point” is the critical moment when the weight of positive and negative traits shift. A shift occurs during the presence of reflection, what Bahktin refers to as the “reflective
double voice.” The “reflective double voice” uses the “voice of the other” to question the self. It is this voice that opens space, the “liminal space” between one place and another, for turning points to occur and narratives to expand. Within critical turning points, or critical moments, is uncertainty. At these points an individual begins to recognize the paradox that competing moral frameworks exist and are circularly interdependent. The “liminal space” is a location between social identities where roles can shift, positions can alter and old identities can be stripped of fixed traits. As a new, more complex and interdependent narrative emerges, positive change in the relationship can occur and polarization can be reduced (Cobb 2005). This process happens naturally when a triggering event or a series of events evokes an emotional and cognitive response. Engaging in both aspects of intellect opens the reflective space necessary for people to begin to question in new ways (Scheff 2000). This chapter explores the presence of reflective “liminal space” in the transformation of perspective. Embedded within the Bush storylines about the war is a characterological (or presumptive) positioning of the perceived enemy. The positions and storyline constituted by the Bush administration after 9/11 to build support for an invasion of Iraq are repeated in various forms from the 2002 State of the Union until the invasion on 19 March 2003 (see Chapters 1-3). Two aspects of the storyline were particularly persuasive to the public: the claim that Iraq had betrayed the West by reconstituting its WMD program and that Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorist organizations and the 9/11 perpetrators.2 The persistent repetition of dehumanizing characterological positioning of other and a threatening, fearful storyline in tones that express anger and urgency elevated this narrative to a dominant position. Taken up by the majority3 of the American public, it established the cause as necessary and just. This chapter presents the stories of veterans of the Iraq War who expressed varying degrees of anger, shame and guilt over the public storylines. Each began to question the legitimizing circumstances of the war and soon began to question the dehumanization of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, which contradicted many of the values and beliefs anchoring the narrative. A new storyline emerged for these soldiers, which challenged not only the basis of the old, but also the underlying cultural assumptions upon which the presenting narrative was constructed. As their tours progressed, they confronted not only the unraveling of the reality framed in the dominant narrative, but also the shattering of beliefs and value commitments that had shaped their sense of national identity. The destabilization had significant, often traumatizing emotional and psychological effects. The soldiers sent to confront the “evil betrayer” too often became the betrayed.
