A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel

LCSI-00163; No of Pages 10 Learning, Culture and Social Interaction xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi

A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel Lipaz Shamoa-Nir Department of Behavioral Sciences, Zefat Academic College, Israel

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 15 August 2016 Received in revised form 7 January 2017 Accepted 9 January 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Identity Construction Student Intergroup dialogue Religion

a b s t r a c t Intergroup dialogues can create a safe environment that encourages individuals to engage in self reflection. This article has examined identity exploration processes among undergraduate students who have participated in a dialogue course. Findings have pointed out several factors that have enabled self-exploration in the group and the dialogue course was fulfilling for most students. The participants felt that the dialogue had helped them form a greater understanding of their identities through two levels of discourse: with the ‘self’ and with ‘the other’ - however, findings also indicated a process that appears to disrupt a ‘deep’ and authentic discourse and can be considered as a contestation of identity. The contribution of this research lies in investigating how identities are shaped within a context of intergroup dialogues and in proposing several hypotheses and questions to advance the research in this field. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Intergroup dialogues are structured conversations between members of different ethnicities, cultures or religions through a collaborative communication process that engages people in self-other exchanges (Dessel & Rogge, 2008; Nagda, Gurin, Sorensen, & Zúñiga, 2009). Intergroup dialogues have been implemented in international, community and academic setting and research indicates positive results in all these settings (Dessel, Rogge, & Garlington, 2006). The literature points to two sets of processes within the intergroup dialogues: the psychological processes that occur within individuals (Dovidio et al., 2004), and the communication processes that occur among individuals (Nagda, 2006). Yet, the value of these discourses in the participants' identity investigation receives little direct attention (Maoz, Steinberg, Bar-On, & Fakhereldeen, 2002). In studying these issues in more detail, this article suggests that a discourse on intergroup religious conflict functions as an opportunity for a meaningful process both on a personal level and in self exploration. The dialogue course studied in this article was developed in 1995 following the assignation of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in order to moderate the chasm between religious and secular Jews in Israel. The dialogue model is greatly based on the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Amir, 1969), and is facilitated by individuals knowledgeable on the Jewish secular-religious conflict (Shamoa-Nir & Hellinger, 2015) who have been trained to lead the discussions (Miller & Donner, 2000). I propose that within an Israeli context, it is assumed that the dialogues would bring about changes in identity constructions, as most of the participants were aware of social and political realities and express multiple and conflicting identities. For this purpose it was decided to use the final papers of undergraduate students who have participated in the dialogue course throughout a semester. It should be noted that this article illustrates the peculiarities of intergroup dialogue in an Israeli context and may not be generalizable to other cultural contexts. In the following sections, existing literature on identity processes will be reviewed with a particular

E-mail address: [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.001 2210-6561/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Shamoa-Nir, L., A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.001

2

L. Shamoa-Nir / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

focus on how these processes are manifested in intergroup dialogues. Following this, the methodological line of inquiry will be outlined and the principle findings. Finally, in the last section, conclusions and recommendations for future improvements will be proposed. 1.1. Identity exploration Identity can be described in terms of the individual's “self” (Erikson, 1963, 1968). Individual identity is defined both by the questions “Who am I?” and “What am I?” with the various answers individuals provide, and through the meanings attributed to them by others. The identity formation process constitutes the principal developmental task in teenage years, but continues all through life and is prone to social influences (Erikson, 1963, 1968). Therefore, although the definition of self-identity might result from individuals' perceptions of themselves in a specific context and a given moment (Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004), development of the self occurs in a continuous process of interactions among individuals and their surroundings; from here, there may be changes in self-identity throughout life. According to Marcia, identity development occurs on the basis of two principal dimensions: exploration and commitment. At first, a search and exploration of alternatives takes place, and following extended exploration, the appropriate identity is finally attained (Marcia, 1980). In an exploration of the identity that mostly occurs during early adulthood (ages 18–25) (Arnett, 2002, 2006), the individual's worldview is explored and general questions are asked on the meaning of life, along with specific questions on religious values and beliefs. In addition, this process is characterized by an examination of whether their personal worldviews differ from those of their parents (Arnett, 2006) and in thought on their belief systems, along with religious questions even when the individual is not living in a religious home environment (Arnett & Jensen, 2002). Religion provides a powerful support to individuals and groups as they endeavor to establish and maintain secure identities, and therefore serves the identity impulse more powerfully and comprehensively than other repositories of cultural meaning can or do (Seul, 1999). Research has found that only one third of young adults engage in exploration of their ideological identity, continuing in the exploration process into their late twenties (Côté, 2006). In certain cases there is an early identity formation (Branch, Tayal, & Triplett, 2000) or identity confusion (Erikson, 1963, 1968). Further, a claim introduced recently by Syed and Mclean (2015) states that there isn't much point in engaging in age-dependent identity development processes and continuing to explore questions like: “When does the identity develop?” or “How does the identity develop at a specific age?” Rather, one should focus on the link between the nature of the developmental process and the timing to which the development applies. It is often not the age that is the principal component in the timing of the occurring process, and therefore focus should be directed on the development processes that occurred at that time. Syed and Mclean believe that as exploration of personal development has focused on exploration and commitment processes, not enough weight has been placed on the identity domains in which these processes are expressed, although focus on these domains may contribute much to the understanding of identity processes (Syed & Mclean, 2015). One can see that the identity formation process expresses two contrasting human needs: the need to belong to a group vs. the need to maintain personal uniqueness (Brewer, 1991), and actually, any perception or understanding of the self is linked to the individual's cultural environment, its characteristics and values (Bruner, 1990). Litvak-Hirsch, Chaitin, and Zaher (2010) argued that identity perception touches on the relationship between the “self” and the “other” and is found on a chain that includes three dimensions of identity: a. monolithic identity – a negative perception towards the “other”, which has difficulties in the containment of opposites in the perception of “self” and “other”; b. intermediate space – including expressions of ambivalence and duality and of the ability to recognize contradictions in identity together with the difficulty to contain them; c. complex identity – an identity that has the coherent ability to express questions and to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity. Further, according to Tajfel and Turner's (1986)social identity hypothesis, an individual's definition of self relies on his/her sense of belonging to a group and can only be fully defined in the presence of others, in belonging to a group and in comparison to an external group (Festinger, 1954). Therefore, there is actually a process of identity verification, where individuals explore the extent of suitability between the way they perceive their identity and the changing social conventions as to an accepted identity in a position or group (Burke, 2004). The identity exploration process can continue for many years, during which young adults may re-evaluate new possibilities and even redesign character traits (Côté, 2000). It is possible, therefore, to claim that what is involved is not merely a non-age-dependent process, but also that in certain contexts in young adult lives there are social processes that accelerate identity exploration, and that these opportunities should be explored. 1.2. Intergroup dialogues and identity Dialogue is perceived as a mutual discourse that may have an influence on each speaker's identity; according to Martin Buber dialogue expresses the recognition of a person's existential existence and ability to create interactions with the ‘other’ (Buber, 1958). The individual works actively to construct his/her identity, to interpret it and to shape it through social processes. The post-modern approach sees an individual's identity as a kind of ‘text’ that is constructed and continues to be constructed in every social encounter or interaction, as a consequence every encounter with the ‘other’ is a new and different expression of the human self, and with time, all of these self-expressions are gathered together and united into one overall identity that Gergen calls the “collage personality” (Gergen, 1991, p.1–21; Gergen, 1997). Thus, it is quite possible to assume that dialogue encounters may be a constitutive element of identity development and construction. Tajfel and Turner (1986) argued that significant identity processes occur in groups that are in conflict. According to their model group identity is a central component of the individual's personal identity, and therefore, one shouldn't attempt to blur Please cite this article as: Shamoa-Nir, L., A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.001

L. Shamoa-Nir / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

3

the group members' group identities or the conflicts between them. On the contrary, one should emphasize the social-group identity and ensure that the various group members be perceived as representatives of the entire group. Further, it is important to strive for equality in group status during the encounter, as well as to introduce the conflict into discussion and try to cope with it while increasing awareness of both mutual dependence among the groups and the importance of cooperation towards a conflict solution (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Research literature supports the impact of intergroup dialogue on communication and psychological processes among the participants (Gurin-Sands, Nagda & Osuna, 2012). In particular, it was found that groups that have a history of conflict or tension can foster intergroup communication, mutual learning and self exploration through participation in intergroup dialogue (Dessel & Rogge, 2008). However, in order to reduce conflict between participants and increase commitment to social change, cultural differences and historical power imbalances among groups should be considered when designing dialogues (Dessel & Rogge, 2008). Indeed, Studies which have assessed building relationships within and across group differences have found that intergroup dialogues can develop an understanding of group identities. Moreover, these dialogues should be guided by trained facilitators who represent the identity groups participating in an intergroup dialogue, and encourage participants to share their personal perspectives and actively listen to the perspectives of others (Gurin-Sands, Gurin, Nagda, & Osuna, 2012). Given the little work on identity construction processes in intergroup dialogues, this research uses evidence deriving the very few studies that have been conducted, mostly on students. These higher education studies have indicated that participating in intergroup dialogue encourages participants to understand others' experiences in society as well as their own (e.g. Nagda, 2006), can have an impact on students regarding social action (Gurin & Nagda, 2006), and can bridge differences through the following four processes: engaging self, appreciating difference, critical reflection, and alliance building (Nagda, 2006). Nonetheless, only small body of research addresses the dynamics discourse between groups in actual conflict. The assumption that intergroup dialogue provides a safe environment to voice insights that may be taboo outside the dialogue (Sanders & Mahalingam, 2012), was put to the test in several actual dialogues between Jews and Palestinians. The Jewish-Palestinian conflict is conflict is well known as an ongoing conflict between these groups both, in the religious and social-political level. The investigations have indicated that members of both groups came to understand and accept their own and the other's complexity of identity through an intergroup dialogue (Maoz et al., 2002). Furthermore, another set of studies showed that religious, values and norms are central aspects in Jewish-Palestinian peace building dialogues and can be utilized (e.g. Abu-Nimer, 2001). In essence, religion plays a central role in construction of both individual and social identities. Because religion provides a powerful support to individuals and groups as they endeavor to establish and maintain secure identities, much intergroup identity competition occurs between religious groups (Seul, 1999). Occasionally religious groups use the controversy in their own identity politics and reap benefits from the intergroup conflict. Yet, not all expressions of religious identity lead to religious intergroup conflict (e.g. Buddhism and Hinduism). In fact, there is much religious content that can support the development of individual and group identities around principles of nonviolence. It seems that the hidden logic of the link between religion and intergroup conflict lies in the peculiar ability of religion to support the development of individual and group identity (Seul, 1999). Hence, it is important to explore identity processes in intergroup dialogues in relation theological perspectives. Moreover, the Jewish identity has often been constructed as unique because of its blend of religious and ethnic identity, and thus it is interesting to explore how secular and religious identities are constructed, both for individuals and collectives (Hartman & Kaufman, 2006). Intergroup dialogues are an ideal context to study the mutual impact of multiple identities (Sanders & Mahalingam, 2012). In particular, understanding the inner Jewish dialogue may help us understand the intricacies of other religions dialogues and attend to the need of those who may easily become the casualties of religious intergroup conflicts. 2. This research The aim of this research is to investigate self-exploration undertaken in actual intergroup dialogue. The dialogue model that was examined combines confrontation with ‘the other’ while working on intergroup relations, and is considered as an opportunity for shared learning and discussions on both, the social and personal identities which are reflected in the dialogue. This particular research context was chosen because of its potential to clarify issues that are related to identity construction and that can be acknowledged only as a result of the discourse itself. Even though self- exploration processes may be hard to investigate, qualitative data may be the best way to explore them. Thematic content analysis was used to investigate if and how identity exploration processes were expressed during the discourse. Of particular interest was the ease or difficulty of discussing identity issues and the role of this discourse in revealing a change in self perception or promoting identity construction. It should be noted that this research is exploratory in nature because of the lack of research works on how identity processes are undertaken in dialogue encounters. 3. Methodology This article focuses on analysis of data from the student perspective. A content analysis was undertaken on final papers submitted by students at the end of the course. The summary papers, written as part of their obligations for academic credit, included a description of student experiences during the course. The papers were written personally, and were submitted a month after the semester ended. A notification was sent to all students on the intention to use their work for research, and their consent was requested. The students were assured that their papers would remain confidential and that a refusal to participate in the research would not affect their grades in any way. To protect students' anonymity, all demographic information was deleted from the papers. Please cite this article as: Shamoa-Nir, L., A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.001

4

L. Shamoa-Nir / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

It is important to clarify that the distinction between the religious affiliations of the participants was based their self-definition. Therefore, and in accordance with the conventional definitions in the Israel, the participants have identified themselves as one of the three following groups: secular, traditional or religious. In general, religious and secular affiliations are not limited to the Israeli society; however the traditional affiliation requires an explanation. Traditional Jews see themselves as part Jewish religion without keeping all the laws of Judaism. Typically, traditional Jews maintain traditional Jewish law customs that are considered symbolic and significant out of solidarity with the Jewish people. 3.1. Sampling Ninety-six undergraduate students participated in the research in 2013 (ninety-nine students participated in the dialogue course, but 1 student did not submit a summary paper and 3 did not agree to participate in the research) of which fifty-one were women and forty-five were men and ninety-four, all were born in Israel. Forty-three defined themselves as being secular, thirty-three as being religious and twenty as traditional. 3.2. Dialogue program as research context The Dialogue course continues for one semester (13–14 weekly encounters of 4 academic hours each), and is offered to all undergraduate students. All students participated voluntarily and underwent an acceptance interview. Each group comprised between 18 and 23 students. The groups were heterogeneous and included Jewish students (religious, traditional and secular students (Arab students at the university were offered a dialogue course between Jews and Arabs)). Acceptance criteria considered during the interview included: personal ability and motivation to take part in group dynamics and basic awareness of issues regarding relations between religious and secular (acceptance rate was 95%). The course comprised workshops in the subjects, based on three levels of content: 1. The first three encounters were devoted to getting to know one another and to group consolidation, and included discussions of the following issues: stereotypes, tolerance and pluralism and relations with the ‘other’. At the end of these encounters, the students participated in a weekend review for all of the dialogue groups, including group activities for the entire program, (running from Friday morning until Saturday night), and comprising lectures, workshops and consolidation activities moderated by the students, as well as shared meals and prayers – for those students interested. It is important to state that the joint activities took place without violating the Sabbath (the Jewish Saturday), but in their free time, each student was free to act according to his/her own beliefs and path. 2. The middle portion of the course was devoted to discussion on Jewish-Israeli identity and the relationships between religion and State, Judaism and democracy. In this portion, in addition to class encounters, participants embarked on a journey of introduction to Ultra-Orthodox Jews, which was not familiar to most of the participants (including national religious) and a symposium on “Judaism as a culture”. During this evening symposium, participants discussed the moral contents of secular Jewish identity, which are not sufficiently expressed in general Israeli culture; 3. The third portion of the semester comprised workshops on significant personal, general and social issues (which are not necessarily related to religion), such as military ethics, relationships and marriage, the status of women and education. 3.3. Coding procedure and analysis The final papers included participants' personal stories and narratives, as well as open answers to a number of questions on their experiences in the dialogue course. The findings were analyzed in the following manner: In the first stage, analysis was conducted on an initial set of 12 papers (4 secular, religious 4 and 4 traditional), which were closely studied for themes by the author and a former facilitator. After discussing which themes to pursue (Interrater agreement- 95%) we decided on how to identify those themes in the students' papers. Based on the comparisons of our notes, we developed a coding scheme for the major themes. We also coded to the subthemes. This aspect of the coding process followed qualitative analysis procedures delineated by Bryman (2001). The coding scheme was used to analyze all the papers and the presence or absence of relevant themes in each paper was marked. After all coding was completed, we asked two undergraduate research assistants students to do a separate blind coding and we compared the agreement of their codes with the author's codes. The coding results had high reliability (Interrater agreement ranged from 87% to 98%). The analysis reported in this research is based on the author coding. 4. Results Most of the participants (90%) reported feelings of self-discovery as a result of participating in the dialogue. These participants saw the dialogue group as a fulfilling experience which encouraged them to be active, grow and learn more about ‘the other’ and their own identities, as Iris wrote: “Participation in the dialogue course was a significant experience for me, most enjoyable and enriching, from all aspects: social, academic and personal.” The authentic and intimate discourse enabled “personal familiarity with other participants and open, respectful discussion.” 4.1. The willingness to participate in dialogue It is important to mention that these feelings of self-discovery are dependent on high level of willingness to participate in the dialogue course. Willingness to participate in the dialogue at the start of the term was coded for low willingness, high willingness, Please cite this article as: Shamoa-Nir, L., A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.001

L. Shamoa-Nir / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

5

or no mention. Most of the participants (85%) came to the dialogue with high levels of willingness (90% of the religious participants and 70% of the secular/traditional participants). Two subthemes emerged to explain how or why the participants expressed willingness to participate in the intergroup dialogue. 4.1.1. Life experiences and family circumstances The first subtheme concerns important events and stories from childhood, dealing with content related to religion or the relationship between religious and secular Israeli society. Half of participants wrote that they came to the course following a life story or family history that paved the way for participating in dialogue. Some of the students (15%) described ‘open questions’ from the past- that they had hoped to examine and resolve during the dialogue, as explained by Hagay: My childhood makes it easier for me, I think, to accept the different, despite my being in the minority [religious] as a child. I think the secular people in my neighborhood were different; still, we played together without any problems, except on Saturdays, when I couldn't play with them or visit them so as not to violate the Sabbath. It's interesting that although I knew it was forbidden, a tiny voice inside me kind of pushed me to find out why we couldn't do what they did on the Sabbath. What were they doing that was so terrible? Actually, how are we different?

4.1.2. Engaging self A second aspect of this theme centered on a personal need (among 25% of the participants) to understand who they are and explore the self. The participants presented personal dilemmas or psychological difficulties and expressed a desire to use dialogue framework to deal with these personal contents. Most of them referred to their religious identity, as Sharon wrote: I entered the dialogue program mostly to sort out my head a little. This is after many years of being a traditional Jew, and following a period of a few years of being total secular; now I am in a place of uncertainty. So I decided to join the dialogue course, because this might be the right place and time to delve into myself and ask questions, and maybe obtain some answers on open questions. However, some of the participants (25%) did not relate only to religious issues or to the relationship between the religious and the secular. These participants reported that they were in the midst of a life stage of indecision (“not sure about themselves”), as to worldviews and their desired values, and that actually, the dialogue process accompanied other personal, ongoing processes. For example, Merav wrote: I have always believed that I am in some sort of dialogue with myself and with others regarding religion, beliefs and the values that are right for me, particularly in this stage, after the army and my trip to South America, where I should focus and begin to build my life. Therefore, I believe that the dialogue program has given me a serious push forward towards my ongoing introspection. It came at just the right time for me.

4.2. What enabled identity exploration? It seems that the participants struggled to cope with the intensive semester-long dialogue course; however they pointed to several factors which were a source of support for them and enabled them to pursue the challenging discourse. Three subthemes emerged in the intergroup dialogue at the start of the term that contributed to identity exploration processes. 4.2.1. Appreciating difference: practicing pluralism in heterogeneous groups A significant aspect pointed out by course participants was the exposure to a range of people and world views. It seems that the openness to meet ‘others’ shape and is shaped by heterogeneous composition of the dialogue group, as Ariela wrote: Dialogue encounters with radically different opinions from mine made me realize how hard it was for me to believe that I would think these things in my daily routine. During the dialogue I heard ideas and opinions I had never heard before, and it made me think …and learn. As expected, most of the participants referred directly to the contribution they received from participation in the dialogue, particularly tolerance and acceptance of others, as described by Yarden: “one of the most important insights I obtained in the workshops – to work on myself and change my radical views”. Often the self exploration was advanced after the participants refined their attitudes in view of the different world-views offered by other members in the group, as Mati wrote: The fact that the group comprised a variety of students helped me to place myself on the spectrum, because I saw the entire range, and I could constantly check myself against others. It was difficult for me with the religious people in the group who are different from me, but I feel that they contributed greatly in that, because of them, I understood things about myself, particularly during arguments where I had to explain my own worldviews, which are different from theirs. Please cite this article as: Shamoa-Nir, L., A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.001

6

L. Shamoa-Nir / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

4.2.2. Facilitating style and group atmosphere The second subtheme centered on characteristics of the group process, particularly how the facilitators led the discussions and the relationship between the group members. Findings indicate that even though each group had a different facilitator, almost all of the participants linked the process they underwent with the facilitating style. Most of them commended the neutral position of the facilitators, without bias for any group (religious or secular), and they were perceived by participants as enabling openness and exposure of personal stories among group members. Orna described it in this manner: I must commend the facilitator, who found a balance between providing the right opportunity to the group for development, and leading the discussion to the appropriate point. Allowing others to express themselves while taking command and displaying neutrality was not a simple task, particularly because the facilitator was religious. It wasn't felt, though, because he gave equally respectful attention to everyone. I trusted the facilitator to know how to take what I said to the right place and to channel it for the group, so I always felt comfortable expressing my opinions. This finding is consistent with Winnicott's (1988) perception regarding the existence of a “potential safe space” that leads to the occurrence of deep processes among participants. This space does not necessarily require belonging to any particular group, but rather requires the facilitation style that enabled participants in some of the groups to write similarly on their group experience, and it appears that the common denominator among these groups was the development of close and intimate group trust. For example, here is Efi's description: “We all shared very personal experiences, and if we hadn't trusted our facilitator, it wouldn't have worked.” These feelings were enhanced by the pleasant group atmosphere, particularly in groups where the feeling of affiliation to the group was described as: “I connected with people in the group”, “a group that had a good connection”. Among religious students, a sense of mutual involvement was expressed, e.g. as Rachel wrote: “I had the honor of belonging to a very special group. I encountered not only arguments but real brotherhood, expressed in tremendous openness. Everyone spoke freely about what they felt and there was a human connection.” 4.2.3. Support beyond the boundaries of the groups The third subtheme is related to external support and reinforcements beyond the boundaries of the group that contributed to the participants' self exploration. The participants emphasized the support received from family or friends in coping with issues that arose during the encounters. Sharing with these people led to receipt of emotional support or ideas that was perceived by participants as legitimizing participation in the process. This idea was expressed in Ariela's comments: “There almost wasn't a week that went by without my returning home and raising the dilemmas we discussed with my family […] and the discussion continued at home, sometimes for several days!” Eran also described support: “I was pleased that my girlfriend had a sympathetic ear for me, because every time I returned from a dialogue encounter, I told her about it and we discussed the issues. Sometimes I just had to share with someone and obtain feedback for things I said in the group.” In addition and consistent with contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Amir, 1969), institutional support was seen as a significant factor which contributed to an effective dialogue. Indeed, a few students, including Ariela, referred to this matter: It's important to have these kinds of workshops at the university […] in our daily routines. Usually we are unable to hold dialogue encounters. There is no doubt that in life we hold conversations in various situations just like we did in the encounters, but due to lack of time or lack of desire to attain real discourse among the different segments in a population, each side tries harder to express its opinion and less to listening to the other side. In the encounters, the situation was different, because we were aware of the objective of our encounter, which was to listen to others and get to know them. 4.3. Aspects of self-discovery Overall, the findings provide substantial support for the engagement of self-exploration and identity construction processes in intergroup dialogue. In addition, it is important to note that this theme reveals the differences in how secular, traditional and religious students experienced the dialogue and the exploration processes that arose in this dialogue. 4.3.1. Self reflection or growth experience The first aspect of self-discovery was reflected in participants' understanding and ability to identify changes in their worldviews and perceptions. During the dialogue encounters, participants investigated their life stories in ways they couldn't before, and obtained an opportunity to learn new things about themselves. Orna, a secular student stated in her paper: “The course opened up a window of opportunity for me to open my heart and mind. Each encounter made me rethink about myself, and demanded my attention to existential questions.” And Lea wrote: Over the years, I've gotten used to being called national-religious. I never made an effort to examine the meaning in depth and only when I was asked about it during the workshop, did I feel I was examining myself and my life. More than once, personal revelations let to the participants identifying processes of ‘deeper’ change, as described by Sam: I think the fact that I am able to listen to the opinions of those different from me without having to put up defenses is already an accomplishment in itself. Now I look at people differently. More than anything, participation contributed to thoughts on my routine daily life, on my lifestyle and a sense that I should change things. Please cite this article as: Shamoa-Nir, L., A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.001

L. Shamoa-Nir / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

7

Only a few of the religious participants described a feeling that the dialogue had helped them form a greater understanding of who they are as a person. One of the few illustrations of this can be found in the words of Levana - a religious woman: I've never felt constrained – I thought that as a woman I could reach any goal in life. But the dialogue opened my eyes and I understood that as a religious woman, my choices are somewhat limited. For example, it bothers me that there are jobs I can never have. Still, I'm at peace with my religious views and I'm against permissiveness regarding homosexuals and lesbians, because it goes against the Jewish Halacha [The Jewish law].

4.3.2. Opportunity for reinforcement of religious group affiliation This subtheme emerged from the content of the discussions, and was inherent to the aim of the discourse that was investigated. It appears that these revelations have reinforced perceptions regarding the participants' group affiliation, both among traditional and secular participants, as Gila wrote: “I live peacefully with the fact that the traditional group is not quite defined. After we sat together, we managed to find common characteristics, and I don't think the uniformity practiced among the religious is appropriate. It's too strict for my taste.” Oren wrote: “I am proudly secular, both with myself and with my group, which operates according to” live and let live. “We have things in common and there is a lot of space for differences […] without this space, we would feel suffocated”. The religious participants' group affiliation was cemented from the beginning of the dialogue, so it was hardly mentioned as being significant to the investigation process. Perhaps participants from the religious group, which is homogeneous in nature, did not feel the need to address this issue as it seemed to have been taken for granted. For example, Benjamin wrote: I always thought it was taken for granted to be part of the religious public, but only at the end of the course did I feel more proud. Because I fought for my opinions during the encounters, I am now more at peace with myself and my choices. I know I'm in the right place regarding both my personal opinions and the group I'm part of.

4.3.3. Self doubts and fear of change Although the intensive process throughout the semester dealt with significant issues, approximately half of the participants wrote that they found it hard to sum up the experience, which was referred as “tremendous”, “exciting” and “so full of upheavals.” For example, Hanan: “Unfortunately, what I got out of the program personally hasn't yet crystallized for me and I find it difficult to put it into words. The difficulty is expressed in all the questions that remained open, and it's hard for me to come to a written conclusion. Also, because the issues appealed more to my emotions, it's hard to describe things in words.” About 20% of the students' papers contained negative feelings concerning the conflict between secular and religious, including: “I was troubled”, “I couldn't bear it”, “this made me angry” or “It was frustrating”. It seems that the participants experienced a dialectical dynamic of confrontation and closeness. These participants reported on ambivalent attitudes regarding the dialogue as, on the one hand, they experienced it in a threatening way and, on the other, coping with ‘the other's’ views instilled confidence in them and reinforced their worldviews, as Ariela wrote: “Sometimes the encounter was unsettling and it made me apprehensive and wonders whether my line of thought was really the right one for me […] and sometimes the views that were opposed to mine were the ones that reinforced my own and proved to me that I'm on the right track because I understand what I absolutely don't want to be.” Moreover, the dialogue was described as an emotional experience in overcoming fears and coping with the suffering inherent “in discovering; who is the real me?” These participants made use of words and content describing feelings that express fear of change or fear of the unknown. For example, Sara wrote: “In some of the encounters, it was hard because I didn't know what state I would be in when I left – calm or troubled – mainly because of the responses I got when I dared to reveal my real opinions”. Some participants were most apprehensive about the thought that they might be different when they left the dialogues, mainly because they didn't know what effect the dialogue would have on them. Still, 25% of participants stated that the change they underwent following the dialogues was the “appetite” they obtained to “continue their personal journeys” and “their introspection”. One of these was Halit, who wrote: “I am leaving the dialogue program strengthened and with more desire and demands from myself for internal accuracy and an in-depth examination regarding my thoughts and desires.”

5. Discussion This research investigated identity exploration processes in a dialogue course in relation to religious intergroup conflict. The examination of subsequent student papers revealed that they valued opportunities for identity investigation through a discourse Please cite this article as: Shamoa-Nir, L., A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.001

8

L. Shamoa-Nir / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

with ‘the other’. It seems that above all, personal motivations and life circumstances had contributed to the willingness to participate in the intergroup dialogue and to self-exploration. Moreover, the willingness to meet ‘the other’ testifies to the desire to develop and broaden one's self perception with the help of both, the supportive atmosphere among group members, and the receipt of support beyond the boundaries of the group. Nevertheless, this research puts into question the intergroup dialogue's contribution to an identity construction process with long term effects, because the findings were restricted to the personal processes the individual undergoes in a group – particularly a focus on the participants' religious identity. In addition, the facilitators' desire to maintain positive interpersonal relations among the group members led to insufficient attention to authentic and profound discourse. The research findings reveal that the participants were engaged in a ‘deep’ dialogue due to the discourse with both in-group members and out-group members. It seems that this type of dialogue was most prominent for the participants because it created a mechanism of two-directional observations, where they were engaged simultaneously with the questions, “How do I perceive ‘the other’ within the in-group?” and “How do I perceive ‘the other’ within the out-group?” The participants referred to their personal and social identities in comparison to the out-group members. This might be the explanation for participant reports on a change occurring during the dialogue, from monolithic perceptions to seeing a complex identity. Nevertheless, it appears that the participants were not necessarily striving for integration of the various identity components, but rather engaged more in an attempt to settle their self-perceptions in the face of the challenges and differences that arose in discussions. This pattern of findings is consistent with the pluralistic reality of the modern age, where there is a proliferation of beliefs and ways of life, and these awaken conflicting reactions in the individual, which affect one's internal world (Berger, 1979). Moreover, it was found that the heterogeneous composition of the group contributed to identity perception and encouraged exploration processes. This finding is consistent both with the course's objectives to trigger formulation processes among group members and with research showing that a rapport contributes to the improvement of mutual perceptions and relationships among members from both groups (for example, Dixon & Durrheim, 2003). Therefore, students were able to develop a sense of belonging to their dialogue group, regardless of their religious affiliation (Orthodox, traditional or secular). This emphasizes the dialogue group as a shared community with the ability to convert its members from representatives of different sub-groups into members of one unified group. However, this may reflect imbalance with the contribution of the group dynamic to the construction of an authentic identity and gives the students little control over their own learning. Most of the participants did not mention in their papers the conflicts that arose during the discourse, and one may wonder whether the dialogue contributed to an expression of forced identity perceptions and the creation of apparent unification, which won't last over time and may crumble in the face of the next discourse or conflict. We should bear in mind that the dialogue course's aim was to reduce inter-group hostility. In accordance with this, it is possible that the desire for positive interpersonal contact and highlighting what the participants have in common were viewed by participants as being necessary for the existence of a successful process, where it should be preferable to nurture interpersonal relationships over a presentation of opposing views, even at the price of blurring one's personal identity. Further to this, a potential difference among, orthodox, secular and traditional participants should be pointed out. The orthodox participants were anchored in a strong identity that was self-aware, and it appears that the discourse strengthened their perceptions. In contrast, the secular and the traditional participants displayed an identity exploration process that was not yet completed and included doubts and indecision. It is possible that this difference between the groups stems from the religious participants entering the encounters with what appears to be a prematurely formed identity, i.e., accepting an identity without engaging first in self-examination, usually due to social pressure, which is so common among traditional and conservative societies and among minorities (Branch et al., 2000). However, the reports of the secular and the traditional participants reflected a common phenomenon over recent decades among young people from the west – a rejection of formation of a stable identity, sometimes expressed in anxiety and doubts.

5.1. Limitations and future research The research presented here was exploratory and was based on an analysis of papers submitted at the end of the course, and, therefore, it is potentially limited in its ability to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the identity exploration process undergone by the students. First of all, the papers were written one month following the course's end and most likely these processes, which tend to seep in over time, should be evaluated in a later stage in participants' lives; therefore, a longitudinal study is recommended. In addition, further research should include a methodical examination of the concept of identity through the use of designated tools, and through an integration of findings from in-depth interviews, as has been done in other dialogues (e.g. Maoz, 2004). In addition, intergroup dialogues usually raise tensions related to different interests and conflicts among the groups; however, these issues were hardly mentioned in the students' papers; if anything, the participants expressed more personal conflicts within the identity components – particularly when he/she was with the members of his/her group – and only a few times the social identity may have been emphasized. It is possible that participants found it difficult to confront the ‘other’ and to express contents regarding their social identity. Thus, they reframed the content of the dialogues in ways that they felt comfortable discussing. It is assumed that discourse in relation to religious identities was central in the discussions; however it was not reflected in the participants' papers. Therefore, further research is required to explore how religion and other social identities (e.g. gender, ability status or sexual orientation) shape and are shaped in dialogue encounters (Coston & Kimmel, 2012). Please cite this article as: Shamoa-Nir, L., A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.001

L. Shamoa-Nir / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

9

Although the participants related to the neutral facilitating style as an important factor in the formulative process they experienced, we should remember that the facilitator plays a special role in facilitating dialogue that was not expressed in the findings. First, the structure of power relations in groups is affected by social reality and therefore their potential for change is much more limited. In the same manner, the religious identities of the facilitators are related to external reality and pose a challenge to both the facilitator and the group. Second, the discourse in dialogues is sometimes characterized by controversy, which breeds a lot of tension. If so, given that the facilitating style was not studied in-depth, one should qualify the impression it created in that the trust bestowed upon the facilitator by participants contributed to a sense of confidence and heightened introspection processes appropriate to identity studies. Therefore, continued research might study these processes from the point of view of the group facilitators and apply them to the understanding of the group dynamics regarding identity formation among participants. 5.2. Conclusion This research shed a light on a process that engages in the development of identity as a consequence of the individual's relations towards ‘the other’. Within the framework of intergroup dialogues most of the research literature has focused on recognizing the intergroup benefit of the encounters. However, this research focused on a dialogue model illustrating the processes occurring in group, from the point of view of the individual's identity. It will take further research to explore how these identity processes interact precisely in group dynamics. The next step in research will be to develop models of dialogue that are suited for specific religious groups in dealing identity exploration with theological perspectives. Acknowledgements The dialogue course was carried under the responsibility of the Dean of Students Office of Bar-Ilan University, headed by Dean of Students Prof. Shmuel Shulman and Head of Administration Mrs. Ilanit Betit. I wish to thank all the facilitators of the dialogue course. And I wish to thank to the students who took part in the discussions. References Abu-Nimer, M. (2001). Conflict resolution, culture, and religion: Toward a training model of interreligious peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research, 38(6), 685–704. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publication. Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71 420-319. Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10), 774. Arnett, J. J. (2006). Emerging adulthood: Understanding the new way of coming of age. In J. J. Arnett, & J. L (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21th century (pp. 85–116). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Arnett, J. J., & Jensen, L. A. (2002). A congregation of one individualized religious beliefs among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17(5), 451–467. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers' professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128. Berger, P. L. (1979). The heretical imperative. New York: Anchor Press. Branch, C. W., Tayal, P., & Triplett, C. (2000). The relationship of ethnic identity and ego identity status among adolescents and young adults. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 777–790. Brewer, B. M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bryman, A. (2001). The nature of qualitative research. Social research methods, 365–399. Buber, M. (1958). I and thou. New-York: Scribner. Burke, P. J. (2004). Extending identity control theory: Insights from classifier systems. Sociological Theory, 22, 574–594. Coston, B. M., & Kimmel, M. (2012). Seeing privilege where it isn't: Marginalized masculinities and the intersectionality of privilege. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 97–111. Côté, J. E. (2000). Arrested adulthood: The changing nature of maturity and identity. NYU Press. Côté, J. E. (2006). Emerging adulthood as an institutionalized moratorium: Risks and benefits to identity formation. In J. J. Arnett, & J. L (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21th century (pp. 85–116). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Dessel, A., & Rogge, M. E. (2008). Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of the empirical literature. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(2), 199–238. Dessel, A., Rogge, M. E., & Garlington, S. B. (2006). Using intergroup dialogue to promote social justice and change. Social Work, 51(4), 303–315. Dixon, J. A., & Durrheim, K. (2003). Contact and the ecology of racial division: Some varieties of informal segregation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 1–24. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Stewart, T. L., Esses, V. M., ten Vergert, M., & Hodson, G. (2004). From intervention to outcome: Processes in the reduction of bias. In W. G. Stephan, & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), Education programs for improving intergroup relations: Theory, research and practice (pp. 243–265). New York: Teachers College Press. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 7(2), 117–140. Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books, 1–21. Gergen, K. (1997). Social saturation and the populated self. In G. E. Hawisher, & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Literacy, technology and society: Confronting the issues. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ. Gurin, P., & Nagda, B. R. A. (2006). Getting to the what, how, and why of diversity on campus. Educational Researcher, 35(1), 20–24. Gurin-Sands, C., Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Osuna, S. (2012). Fostering a commitment to social action: How talking, thinking, and feeling make a difference in intergroup dialogue. Equity & Excellence in Education: University of Massachusetts School of Education Journal, 45(1), 60–79. Hartman, H., & Kaufman, D. (2006). Decentering the study of Jewish identity: Opening the dialogue with other religious groups. Sociology of Religion, 67(4), 365–385. Litvak-Hirsch, T., Chaitin, J., & Zaher, E. (2010). Perceptions of the holocaust of Palestinian young adults, citizens of Israel. Peace and Conflict, 16(3), 231–252. Maoz, I. (2004). Coexistence is in the eye of the beholder: Evaluating intergroup encounter interventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Social Issues, 60. Maoz, I., Steinberg, S., Bar-On, D., & Fakhereldeen, M. (2002). The dialogue between the ‘self’ and the ‘other’: A process analysis of Palestinian-Jewish encounters in Israel. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 55(8), 931–962. Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159–187). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Miller, J., & Donner, S. (2000). More than just talk: The use of racial dialogues to combat racism. Social Work with Groups, 23(1), 31–53. Nagda, B. A. (2006). Breaking barriers, crossing boundaries, building bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 553–576.

Please cite this article as: Shamoa-Nir, L., A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.001

10

L. Shamoa-Nir / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Nagda, B. A., Gurin, P., Sorensen, N., & Zúñiga, X. (2009). Evaluating intergroup dialogue: Engaging diversity for personal and social responsibility. Diversity & Democracy, 12(1), 4–6. Sanders, M. R., & Mahalingam, R. (2012). Under the radar: The role of invisible discourse in understanding class-based privilege. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 112–127. Seul, J. R. (1999). ‘Ours is the way of god’: Religion, identity, and intergroup conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 36(5), 553–569. Shamoa-Nir, L., & Hellinger, M. (2015). Dialogue between religious and secular Jews in Israel. Social Issues in Israel, 19, 64–94 (in Hebrew). Syed, M., & McLean, K. C. (2015). The future of identity development research: Reflections, tensions, and challenges. In K. C. McLean, & M. Syed (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of identity development (pp. 562–573). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel, & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Nelson-Hall: Chigago. Winnicott's, D. W. (1988). Babies and their mothers. MA: Addison-Wesle.

Please cite this article as: Shamoa-Nir, L., A dialogue with the ‘self’: Identity exploration processes in intergroup dialogue for Jewish students in Israel, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.001