September 8, 2023 • 42 mins
Karina Korostelina, a professor of conflict analysis and resolution in George Mason University's Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, conducts research with global implications that not only applies to countries and groups in conflict but societies as well. She tells Mason President Gregory Washington that Ukraine’s war with Russia, at its end, will present enormous problems with the reconciliation of people and territories. A look behind the scenes at Korostelina’s remarkable research and what it tells us about human nature and how we can find peace after conflict.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:04):
(Narrator) Trailblazers in research innovators intechnology and those who simply have a
good story all make up the fabricthat is George Mason University.
Where taking on the grand challenges thatface our students, graduates and higher
education is our mission and our passionhosted by Mason President Gregory
Washington. This is theAccess to Excellence podcast.
(00:26):
(Gregory Washington) At George Mason University, we are on arelentless quest to transform the world,
and that means we don'tnecessarily play it safe.
Karina Korostelina is the epitome of that,
the Professor of Conflict Analysisand resolution at George Mason's,
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peaceand Conflict Resolution is a tireless
(00:47):
advocate for peace andreconciliation on a global scale.
A social psychologist whose work focuseson the dynamics of identity and power
and protracted social conflicts.
Dr. Korostelina was recently in Polandinterviewing Ukrainians displaced
by war with Russia,
and she was doing this for a studyfunded by the National Science Foundation
called the Cost of Peace (01:09):
War Experience,
territorial Loss and PeaceAgreement Consensus in Ukraine.
She was in Rwanda for the WorldConference on Reconciliation,
which is put on by the InternationalAssociation of Reconciliation Studies of
which she is vice president and in Kenya,
Dr. Korostelina is part of a three yearproject to revamp the way the US
(01:33):
State Department mitigates conflictsbetween groups and countries.
In addition, she has had 11 residentialfellowships, including the Fulbright,
the Rockefeller, and withthe Woodrow Wilson Center.
And her research has beensupported by 46 grants.
That's an impressive resume.Karina Korostelina, welcome to the show.
(01:53):
(Karina Korostelina) Thank you very much. It's such an honor,but also a great pleasure to be here.
Thank you.
Gregory Washington) Well, outstanding. Well look,we're gonna jump right into this.
This is obviously a really,
really important topic inlight of current events.
So set the basic stage here.You are Ukrainian from Crimea,
is that correct?
(Karina Korostelina) Yes, I was born in Crimea.
(02:13):
I went to university and got mydegrees in Kyiv.
division and it's very, veryemotional of course for me.
But it's also give me opportunity todeeply dig into dynamics of conflict.
(Gregory Washington) I found that when your researchhits close to home and in your case
(02:37):
physically so,
it provides an extramotivation to deal with
the difficult times when a proposalmight be rejected or you didn't get a
fellowship that you want,
or you got a graduate studentor an undergraduate who's struggling to understand
and learn a concept.
And it's frustrating trying to getthem to understand what's happening.
(02:58):
You can look back and say, Hey, butI'm in this business for this reason,
and so I want to commend you onyour life's work is actually solving
a global problem.
(Karina Korostelina) Thank you. And uh, you'recompletely right. First of all,
then you submit proposals. You do notreceive all of them. That's right.
So I always tell my students in academic,life is full of rejections. You,
(03:22):
you have to be ready for it.
But you have to understand thatevery rejection is an opportunity to
improve your proposal, opportunityto develop a better article.
And that's why we have thisgreat ability to really
receive a lot of projects anddevelop them in a way which
(03:42):
supported by the major foundations.
(Gregory Washington) Now, you haven't been to Ukraine sincethe conflict started. Is that accurate?
(Karina Korostelina) Yes. Mm-hmm.
Okay, so how do you conduct your research giventhat you're not really accessing the
country?
(Karina Korostelina) My way of doing research in multiplecountries, including Ukraine,
is always to support as muchas possible local scientists,
(04:04):
local researchers, local students.
So when we get the grant fromNational Science Foundation,
all data,
and we conducted morethan 2,300 surveys and
90 in-depth interviews withrefugees and people affected by war,
all of them were conducted andcollected by local research institutions
(04:27):
and scholars, and students. Butat the same time, for me,
it's very important ininterpretation to stay as close to
results,
to stay as close as data and themeanings which people produce.
So I went to Poland,
I went to Czech Republic several timesto explore and speak with refugees,
(04:50):
to understand through deep conversationwhat meaning they attached to particular
phrase, to particular ideas,
which really helped me in myinterpretation of results.
(Gregory Washington) Well, you talk about the local connection,
and that's an interesting conceptbecause the reality is what you see
in many conflicts is a tendencytowards kind of a homogeneous identity
(05:13):
and the Ukrainian conflict.
This war is very interesting in that youmentioned earlier from Crimea, right?
Well, Crimea was annexed by Russiaeven before this conflict started,
and there are significant populationsof Russians in Crimea as well as
other groups. So when you start to talkabout local, how is that playing out?
(05:34):
Because the individuals in Crimea,would they be in support of,
would they be against what'shappening in the rest of the Ukraine?
How do those pieces meldwhen the population is
mixed?
(Karina Korostelina) Yeah, this is a very,
very good question because whatwe notice in multiple conflicts,
especially then it'sevolved war intervention.
(05:58):
Then it's involved mass violence,
that societies tend to become morehomogeneous because they do need
to come together to addressthreats, to address war dynamics.
But in this process of homogenization,
voices of different minorities aresilenced, for example, in Ukraine.
(06:21):
Now, of course there is a strongpatriotic feeling in my research,
but also in the researchof other scholars,
we see huge increase in importanceof Ukrainian national identity.
But unfortunately in the same time,
it's hijacked by people whorepresent national identity as
just ethnic only Ukrainian,
(06:43):
not given voices to other peoplebeing contributors and loyal
contributors to the nation.
Because the difference between ethnicand national is very important.
That's why it's create a lot ofproblematic dynamics within the
country, not just Ukraine,but we see it in Georgia.
We see it all over the world.
(07:04):
(Gregory Washington) Right. My understanding in Georgiathough it's a little different.
There is a real underpinningof backlash against the
Russians in Georgia, in Crimea,which is part of Ukraine.
At least on the surface, it doesn'tseem that there's as much resistance.
I don't want to use the word acceptance,it might be too strong of a word,
but there is clearly somehomogeneous identity that has
(07:29):
been adapted to over the years that ledup to this conflict. Is that accurate?
(Karina Korostelina) Crimea is a very interesting case.
So there are a lot of people whoshare Russian cultural identity,
but it doesn't mean theyare loyal to Russian state.
It's a very different type of identity,very different types of connection.
(07:51):
And then Crimea was takenby Russian Federation
in moment of several hours,people who can leave. Again,
we have to understandthat leaving the country,
it means that you have to beready to find job another place.
You have to be healthy, right? Ifyou're sick, you could not really leave.
If you are old, you could not leave.So only people who could leave,
(08:15):
they left as much as theycan. Those who remained,
not all of them loyal andwant to be in Crimea,
many of them just could not move. Butalso resistance in Russian Federation,
it's very hard.
I read these interviews for peoplewho were under Russian occupation now
in three territoriesand the level of terror,
(08:36):
level of control, killingpeople, torturing people.
I hosted a group of Ukrainian womenwho were tortured by Russian soldiers
just because they were somehowprotesting or just were wives of
soldiers. The level ofterror, it's unbelievable.
So for people to resist,
you have to have a lot of realcourage and not every person can.
(09:00):
So that's why the wholeissue of reintegration
of territories, whichwill come up pretty soon,
as soon as Ukraine will free more andmore territories, will be one of the key
issue for Ukrainian.
(Gregory Washington) This whole idea of integrating territoryis one that's gonna be a difficult
(09:20):
one, right? How dangerous is it fora country not to see itself as a
multicultural entity and then listen tothe voices of some minority groups in
order to make itself whole?
(Karina Korostelina) It's very dangerous because we justcompleted a very interesting study,
which was lead, actually it's continue.We bring it on the next level,
(09:42):
but the study was analysisof 15 peace processes
across the globe.
And I conducted this analysisbased on identity dynamics,
which is completely new type of approach.
And what I found in additionto many other factors,
that if nation createsmulticultural or civic
(10:03):
based on connection to the state identity,
that peace processes sustained. If not,
if country promote ethnic concept ofnational identity, peace processes fail.
(Gregory Washington) So they fail if theyhave some national identity?
(Karina Korostelina) They fail if there is an ethnicconcept of national identity,
(10:23):
if only one group havecontrol over other groups,
if other minorities perceivedas less capable or less
able or the access to power andresources defined by ethnicity,
then peace processes failed becauseit's, it's not inclusive society.
That is phenomenal. That issuch a nascent concept.
(10:47):
I don't know if people reallycatch what you just said there,
because that is notjust true for countries.
I think that's true for societies ingeneral. I mean, I say not for countries,
I mean not for countrieswho are undergoing conflict, right? I think in general,
inclusive societies workbest and societies that are
(11:09):
ruled or dominated by one group,
especially if that group isnot a overwhelming significant
majority leads to conflict andproblems. I think you're really,
really onto somethingwith this line of work.
(Karina Korostelina) Yeah, you're completely right.
And I'm glad that you broughtMason because we always speak Mason Nation, right?
(11:29):
And the ideaof the nation, as you know,
we were developed during Middle Ages aswas really connection to one students
of the university, which self,self govern around themselves.
And this really brings us to theidea that membership in the nation,
it's equal independent of whatyour ethnicity, race, religion,
(11:51):
gender, everyone equal and everyonehave equal responsibilities,
but also equal rights.
And this also can be applied to anation and development of the nation.
So liberal civic concept of thenation is much more important for
countries in the war recovering from thewar, for example, for Ukraine.
(12:13):
So if you counterposeUkraine as civic liberal nation to
totalitarian Russia ismuch better way to get out
of the whole dilemmasof justice and peace and
homogeneity and minoritiesthan if you present ethnic
Ukrainian nation in comparisonwith Russian ethnic nation.
(12:38):
That makes a lot of sense. So let'sdeal with the proverbial,
you would say elephant in theroom, but let's make it different.
Let's deal with theproverbial bear in the room.
If you go through thisreconciliation process,
if you go through thisintegration of territory process,
because at some point in time thisconflict has to end one way or the other,
right? How does one trust the Russiansafter what just happened with Prigozhin?
(13:00):
How do you know thatinfluential leaders in Ukraine,
influential leaders of this conflict,
influential individuals behindthe war in the resistance won't be
picked off one by oneby Russians over time?
(Karina Korostelina) This is a very,
very good question becauseof course you could not trust
Putin regime,
(13:20):
but there is a big difference betweenPutin regime and Russian people and even
people in Ukraine realize it.
Then we ask in our survey what emotionspeople experienced about Russian
leadership and Russian people.
We saw pretty significantdifference around hate and anger
(13:40):
and other negative emotions,
which usually we around 9.8,
nine point 10 on a one to 10scale for leadership.
But we around probably sevenor eight on four people,
so it's still very high.
But we see the difference andreconciliation process is very long
process. And if we look at for example,
(14:03):
classic reconciliationbetween Germany and France,
it took years after the violencestop for leaders to start
reconciling and still then the proposedreconciliation was a lot of resistance
from people.
For me it's more important isreally reconciliation for now,
which is more pressing issue,reconciliation between the territories,
(14:27):
which will be freed and Ukraine itself,
because there are a lot ofvoices invest in Ukraine,
which were not mostly affectedonly by some rocket attack,
very negative perception of the peoplewho were under unoccupied territories accusing
them. All of that happened. And again,it's not dynamic unique to Ukraine.
You see it in Colombia,
(14:48):
you see it in many other countries whoundergone situations and territories
belong to opposition or to differentcountries.
And this accusation really brings thisvery strong tension between justice and
peace. Are you bringing everyone tojustice? How you bring them to justice?
You could not put everyone inprison. You need to find mechanism,
local mechanisms of accountabilityon restorative justice,
(15:13):
but in the same time mechanism whichhelp to win hearts and minds of people.
because ifyou want them to be loyal citizens,
you really need to createfor them inclusive,
overarching identities theywill be happy to live in.
(Gregory Washington) There's an identitypart to that that I get,
but there's a second part to thisreconciliation piece that I want you to
(15:33):
address. Mm-hmm.,
you publish a paper examiningthe meaning of justice in the
aftermath of war in Sudan.And in that paper you wrote,
your study demonstrates that therespondents also saw the advancement
of justice as returning to thepeaceful time in the aftermath
of war. How do you balance that?
(15:54):
(Karina Korostelina) This is a very,
very deep and great questionbecause together with my colleague Daniel Rothbart,
we conducted analysis ofover 100 oral stories,
oral histories of peopleaffected by violence in Sudan and
one unexpected result, butvery exciting result of it.
(16:14):
That how people perceivethe justice really depends
not only on addressing violence,
but also how they imaginetheir peaceful time.
Usually in court of justice,international criminal court,
other juveniles investigationsusually concentrates on what
(16:36):
is done right? What typeof violence were committed,
what type of mass violence affectedthe entire region or what were done
to particular individual?
But nobody really ask how doyou see the peaceful time?
And what we found thatdepending on the region,
and we analyzed three regions in Sudan,they had very different perceptions.
(16:57):
What pieces? For one group, itwas really community coherence,
very close kinship between people.
For other group it was prosperityand economic development.
And for another group it was absent ofviolence and ability of them to move
freely. So this three different views,
(17:17):
what peace is completely defined,how they see the justice.
(Gregory Washington) I get that part of it.Mm-hmm.,
but if somebody killed your mother,
if somebody killed your brother oryour sister and you are going through a
reconciliation process andthese individuals had given
up and were shot in the back of the head,
(17:40):
there is a crime and ajustice aspect to that.
And that has to be reconciled too right?
Now going to very deep territory.Yeah. And I love it.
and I love it. Exactly.
So it's actually veryinteresting because usually.
(Gregory Washington) Because this is some of the stuff we'rehearing about what's happening in
Ukraine.
(Karina Korostelina) Yeah, exactly. You're completely right.
(18:01):
And usually research on howexposure to violence impacts support
for peace and reconciliation.
We were analyzing impact ofviolence in the general term.
People who under occupation,
people who were affectedby paramilitary and so on.
In research I'm doing right now inUkraine, we actually measure it.
(18:22):
It separately, if you affectedand your properties affected,
you are displaced or you havesomebody killed who you love.
And what we found that thosewho lost property or were
displaced,
they are more supportive of peace andreconciliation than those who were not.
But those who lost a lovedone or close friends,
(18:46):
they're actually more supportivefor continuous fighting.
They strongly against any peacenegotiation because for them
to deal with this trauma,
it's very important to createthe meaning why it's happened.
And the meaning of it is that weneed to free all territories and
reconciliation will never come.So this is very important dynamic,
(19:09):
which were not actually discoveredbefore in science of analyzing war,
but will also impact how we deal withreconciliation. Because for these people,
you have to bring new meaning.
And this meaning can be brilliant tojustice everyone who is responsible,
but this meaning also will be buildinga new life and given opportunity for
(19:30):
their children to enjoy new peaceful life.
So it's all usually workwith ability of people to
address the main importantvalues when they have, and again,
it's a very long processwhich require very targeted,
specific approach.
You could not apply reconciliationto everyone in the same way.
(19:51):
(Gregory Washington) I agree with that becausethere are different experiences with reconciliation as
you clearly have highlighted.
And the justice part of that I think isstill the most difficult part, right?
Because when they feel thatjustice has not been served,
they carry a level of revenge withthem throughout life and it tends to
cause the conflicts to reignite becausethat feeling of justice that has not
(20:14):
been served. And that's the challenge.
(Karina Korostelina) But it's very interestingthat you bring in that,
because I just came from Rwanda and I wasable to talk to a lot of people there,
including minister of nationalunity. Mm-hmm.,
but also with local people and localscholars with people who work in museums.
There are multiple museums of genocidein Rwanda mm-hmm..
(20:35):
And one of the very importantwisdom which came from these people
is that yes, you can livewith sadness and revenge,
but then all your life isthere. You live in the past,
you will never look in the future.
(Gregory Washington) No, I understand that.
(Karina Korostelina) And this is what Rwandais doing right now.
It's really trying to develop visionof the future and pride of a country
(20:58):
which we're able to overcome.
And this pride as asocial identity scholar,
I know how much self-esteemimportant for people to overcome
issue related to violence. There are stilltraumas, of course it's long process,
but giving people alternative,looking into common future,
(21:19):
this approach that stop looking inthe past and you free yourself, right?
You free yourself with it, but you haveto be sure that justice has achieved it.
International institution,
national institutions working hardto achieve justice and bring those
who are responsible to justice.
(Gregory Washington) I understand. So as a Ukrainian,
(21:40):
how personal is yourresearch in your country?
(Karina Korostelina) Of course it's very personaland actually science helps
to deal with it. Mm-hmm.,
because I look at thisissue as a scientist.
I was very happy thatNational Science Foundation,
acted very quickly and withinseveral months of beginning of war,
(22:02):
we were able to get a grant and startresearch because then you are analyzing it
as a scientific process. It'shelped to deal with emotions,
but at the same time as I teach mystudents and because you know at Carter
School, students come from allover the world. (Gregory Washington) That's right.
(Karina Korostelina) They all affected by deepconflict. Not only in world,
but here in the United States too.
(22:23):
(Gregory Washington) No, I agree with you.
(Karina Korostelina) Yes, absolutely. And formany people what they study,
it's very personal and it's actuallygood because they understand dynamics.
But it's very important alwaysto reflect how your meaning,
how your positions impacted. Andthere are ways to do it. For example,
then I write results,I present it to groups,
(22:45):
which I know very opposite in views.
And I hear from both of themand see if my research actually
pretty objective or ifthere are my biases,
which I did not recognize.Mm-hmm.,
it's actually might be interestedbecause speaking about domestic issue,
I published just before Trumpwas elected, unfortunately,
(23:05):
but I hope it will beearlier, but took longer.
I published the book TrumpEffect, where.
(Gregory Washington) Really?
(Karina Korostelina) Yes.
Where I analyze how he empowers people
through different types of aggressions,through different types of insults,
through different types of increasingtheir self-esteem through favorable
comparison.
(23:25):
So I show multiple mechanismswhy people love Trump.
And I was speaking about thisbook, of course I had my bias,
but I tried to present this book asobjective as possible to be scientific as
possible because people who agreewith me already agree with me, right?
People who disagree with me, if theysee my bias, they will never read it.
(23:48):
So this is very important to reach acrossthis. As I always tell students, yes,
our field is very normative.We want peace,
but at the same time we need toreach to people who disagree with us.
(Gregory Washington) Right.
Have you lost contact with any of thoseyou've been working with in Ukraine?
Do you know anyone who's losttheir lives in the conflict?
(Karina Korostelina) Unfortunately, yes.Just before we started,
(24:11):
I was working with severalprojects in Ukraine.
One was in Kherson, Mariupol and Kharkiv.
Everyone now knows these three cities.
And I know that several malefaculties mm-hmm.,
which I was working with, werekilled. Personally,
and I know that a lot of students whichwe were teaching also were affected.
(24:32):
(Gregory Washington) So as a scientist, as someonewho does research, right,
do you find in any way that theemotions of that, these are people who
you do, who you engage with,
who in some cases may haveeven have been friends.
Does it affect how youapproach the science?
(Karina Korostelina) It definitely does, right?We, we are emotional people,
(24:53):
but there are specialways how to deal with it.
And there are developed social scienceapproaches because we know then we
interpret results. We introduceour meaning in it.
We are not objective people.
So it's very important toalways reflect on your biases.
And I also teach students to, in everypaper they write, have a reflection part,
(25:15):
a small outer analysis or
anthropological review of yourself, right?
Some reflection which show howyou belonging to particular group,
how you belonging to group,especially, which is affected,
especially victimized. How it'saffect how you analyze things.
And there is a very interestingtheory, which I love.
(25:38):
It's actually development theory,
but I bring it all this to conflictanalysis and resolution. Kegan Theory,
which describe level of moralityand on a thief's level of
morality is they you actually ableto recognize yourself as a member
of different groups and howbelonging to groups impact your
(25:58):
behavior. Mm-hmm..
And this is the highestlevel of moral perception,
which I hope we develop amongour students in the school.
(Gregory Washington) Oh, that's great.
Because if we could helppeople incorporate or
understand how their biases affect theirwork and that's gonna make them better
(26:19):
researchers and better scientists onthe back end, if you're a journalist,
it's gonna make you a better journalist.If you're a social scientist,
it's gonna make you a bettersocial scientist, right?
If you're a psychologistand you're looking at,
it's gonna make you a better one.
So that's really good stuff to helppeople work through that as they are
learning these issues, right.?
We have a number of Ukrainian studentshere at Mason and some of them may make
(26:41):
their way through your classes. Andin the context of this conflict,
they're gonna have to understand,
I'm not saying you leave your emotionsor you check 'em at the door. No, no, no.
You have them,
but understand how to utilizethem positively in the outcomes
that you hope to achieve inthe work that you're doing.
(Karina Korostelina) Yeah. I strongly believethat understanding how your
(27:04):
belonging to group impactyou. Mm-hmm.,
it's very important and it's reflect this.
One of the key actually dilemmasof our humanity is this dilemma
between security and freedom. If youare free and you want to be free,
you have all your perceptions,ideas, values, your own right.
You're free from judgmentof other groups and so on.
(27:26):
But you are not protected because nogroup will come and protect you. To
get protection of the group, youhave to join group and become loyal.
And loyalty means that youchange your own perceptions,
ideas belong values to group.
Now you feel like group,you perceive like group,
(27:47):
your values become group values.
And in this dynamic you have to findbalance between security you need and
freedom you want. (Gregory Washington) Oh, I see.
(Karina Korostelina) And it's okay if you are living insociety which have low level of violence,
but if you live in society, which hashigh level of violence, can be structural,
it can be cultural, it can beopen violence. In this situation,
(28:10):
people tend to have protection.So they give up their own freedom,
their own thoughts, their ownideas to become protected.
They start thinking like group.And the more they think like group,
the more they see threat from othergroups and the more they see threat from
other groups, the more they think likegroups. So it's become vicious spiral.
(28:31):
which impact dynamics of societies.
(Gregory Washington) Oh wow. The knowledge you aregiving now goes far beyond Ukraine.
(Karina Korostelina) Thank you.
(Gregory Washington) So speaking of that, let'stake it into the classroom.
You have all this informationabout Ukraine, the war,
how people feel about peace andyou're in the Carter school.
How do you incorporate that into yourclassroom and how do you incorporate that
(28:53):
into.
teaching?
(Karina Korostelina) This is great that my abilityto travel to get grants and
work in multiple countries. I donework in more than 25 countries.
I stop counting and Ibring it to my classroom.
Every time I go to any place,
I am able to bring them firsthandinformation about dynamics of conflict.
(29:14):
In this particular place Iwork was like for example,
we just finished a project in Lebanon,
which I was working with youngpeople across sectarian divide.
And this insights of young peoplewere so useful for me to bring
to the classroom.
But also it's sometimes help tochange the way I teach the class.
(29:35):
We had project with Serbia withUniversity of Nis where students in
my class and students in Serbia,
we actually conducted parallelresearch on the same topics.
And then we had a huge conference lastMay where students from two countries
presented the research relatedto minorities to dynamics of
(29:55):
inclusion. It's a great opportunitythat what we doing as researchers,
as practitioners,
then we're bringing it to ourclassroom and next by our students.
(Gregory Washington) One of the things that our students sayand what we like to say at Mason is that
we are a diverse campus, broadlydiverse, fiercely inclusive.
We talk about us being the most diversecampus in our state. Because of that.
(30:19):
Do you find that our students are moreopen to understanding and overcoming the
conflicts that emanate from many of theissues in which you deal with and that
being culture and identity?
(Karina Korostelina) This is so interesting vision becausejust yesterday I started teaching
undergrad class on socialidentity, culture and conflict.
And this is what we had. I askedstudents, we went around and I asked,
(30:42):
what is your exposure to conflict?How you understand conflict?
And a lot of them will bring inexactly their racial or ethnic or
cultural heritage. It's howit's impacted their life,
their feeling of inclusion orexclusion. This was very interesting.
Then they interpret conflict,
many of them as dealing withdiversity and being able
(31:06):
to thrive. Mm-hmm. inenvironments where they appreciate it.
(Gregory Washington) Right. No, I hear you.
If you were to boil down yourgoals in terms of your classes and
what you want to teach, be able toboil that down into a set of outcomes.
What do you hope studentstake away from your classes?
(Karina Korostelina) I think my major goal is empowerment.
(31:29):
Knowledge is just a tool to givestudents opportunity to make
a change.
So my major goal is to give opportunityof student to realize that they can
make a change.
How they can make a change and givethe belief that they can do it.
(Gregory Washington) Hmm. That's good. Ireally, really like that.
Let's switch gears here one more time.
(31:50):
You're part of a projectthat will basically,
for lack of a better way of putting this,
recreate the way in which the StateDepartment deals with groups and countries
that are in conflict. What is the goal?
(Karina Korostelina) This is a very excitingproject, which we very proud of.
I'm PI and I'm working with SusanAllen, who is my colleague at school.
(32:11):
So this project concentrate on ContactTheory and Contact Theory in two
worlds.
It's something then describe how webring different group together to create
social cohesion, to address polarization,
to create local governments,to enforce civic society.
So a lot of resulting fromjust bringing group together.
(32:33):
And what we found and State Departmentfound that it does not really work
as it should be. It's not justlike you bring people together,
they tokens and now they change. Right.It doesn't work this way. Mm-hmm.
and a lot of concernabout it. So we have three year project,
which first to analyzeexisting literature,
bringing a lot of new fields in it,
(32:55):
complexified developing newanswers and new tools. Mm-hmm.
and we now analyzingprojects, doing interviews,
and next step,
extremely exciting, when we willgo to different countries and
do experimental design,see what works better?
Let's put group together in thisway or in this way. For example,
(33:17):
one of the major misrepresentationsthat you bring groups together,
decrease the identity, develop friendship,
and then they will go and change theircommunities. Nope. Doesn't work that way.
(Gregory Washington) It.
doesn't work.
(Karina Korostelina) No. Because they know, seeeach other as person to person,
but it doesn't impact the perceptionof other group. It's actually recreate,
we call this counter stereotypes.Yeah. But actually enforced stereotypes.
(33:42):
(Gregory Washington) You, you said something there becauseI've seen this in my own life, right?
Uhhuh,. So you call itcounter stereotypes? (Karina Korostelina) Yeah. Mm-hmm.
(Gregory Washington) And so let me make sureI understand what you're saying here.
You're saying, okay,
you got two groups of individuals whofor whatever reason they don't get along,
they don't like each other,different ideologies.
You find a way to bring these groupstogether so that they can have
conversations, they can talk. Mm-hmm., they can engage,
(34:05):
but when they go back, theybasically make an exception. Mm-hmm.
For the people who they builtthe friendships with, right?
(Karina Korostelina) Absolutely. Theydo not work across divide.
(Gregory Washington) And then, but when they go back,
they keep the same beliefs of the groupthat they had when they came together.
(Karina Korostelina) Yes, and then.
(Gregory Washington) See I don't that, that'scounterintuitive to me.
(Karina Korostelina) Yeah.
This is because they see thatall other representative are
(34:27):
still very bad. Thereis some good of them,
but it's actually because they closeto us and we actually showing how
you can bring second level,how you now recategorize,
how you bring this identitiesback in this interaction without
destroying the friendship. Sohow you create dual identity,
(34:50):
overarching identity.
So the three step process insteadof simplistic one step process.
So then they get back,
they actually see others andthemselves as a members of the group,
but they also see a lot of commonalitiesbetween groups and it's changed
completely their ways. How theywill, it's one of the tools.
(Gregory Washington) What forces them to seethe commonalities?
(35:11):
Because there are specific tools,for example, deliberations,
how you bring deliberationsinto discussion.
There is a tool so called a gatewaygroups, for example, do dual-racial those.
(Gregory Washington) Yeah, yeah, yeah. (Karina Korostelina) Or a person who belongedto two different religions somehow,
wasn't one.
One religion or see more abilityto work across religion.
(35:34):
A lot of priests have this ability tounderstand more reflective way or you
bring people who work acrossnational level, for example.
(Gregory Washington) Now you bring those people into the group.
(Karina Korostelina) Yes. And they work as a catalyst.
(Gregory Washington) Oh, I see, I see
(Karina Korostelina) They really help. It's there again,
we identify at least ninedifferent tools which can help to
(35:55):
recategorize people together, whichwere not used before. So this,
that's is why we're very excited thatwe, (Gregory Washington) this is really good. (Karina Korostelina) Exactly.
It's will be a new age in Contact Theory.
(Gregory Washington) As we begin to wrap up here,
you just talked about this whole groupdynamics and how to make that work.
One of the things thatI think has happened,
it was always been a partof the American engagement,
(36:18):
but more so over the last fiveto 10 years is the growing
use and utilizations of insults.
Whether those insults be on socialmedia in the form of memes and the other
thing,
or whether they just beoutright verbal insults, right?
We see how that is playing out right here.
(36:38):
Donald Trump uses them constantly, right,
to denigrate his opponents and some seehim as a strong leader because of his
use of insults. It was a very,
very different way of engaging peoplethat he had that was different from pretty
much every other president preceding him.
How do you see insultsplaying a part in conflict?
(36:58):
How do you manage it when it comestime to try to bring people together to
resolve and have conflict resolution?
(Karina Korostelina) You are so right.
I also notice this increaseddynamics several years ago and I
just decided, okay,
what we have in social scienceabout insults, and I found that
it's actually good news andbad news for me. Bad news,
(37:20):
there are no coherenttheory to analyze insults.
But it's also good news. Thereare no coherent theories.
So I can develop one.
(Gregory Washington) So you can develop that. Yes, exactly.
(Karina Korostelina) So, and then I published this book withthe Oxford University press because I
analyze insults as a mutual act onthe border between two individuals or
(37:41):
two groups, analyze it on differentlevels, individual intergroup,
international level.
And what the key on thistheory is that insult is
actually indicative of the needs.
What particular personinsulter has. People insult,
not because they just misbehaveor in incivility or something.
(38:05):
Insult is representation.
What is missing in people needs.Mm-hmm., for example,
those who use identity insult,
they have issues with self-esteem.Those who use legitimacy insult,
they have issue with recognizingtheir own power or being recognized
by others. So thosewho use relative insult,
(38:28):
those people have issue withaccepting them as equal people.
So every time then what this bookhelped and to realize if you know
what insult people are using,
you actually can use it against themor together with them if you are
willing to work with them andrecognizing what their needs are.
(38:49):
So you able to bring more negotiation,
more abilities to address theconflict. Mm-hmm..
So instead of beingjust offended by insult,
use it as a tool of information.
(Gregory Washington) Right. Last question. You've seen war,
you've studied the human condition andhow we're prone to conflict and how
(39:10):
we're prone insults.
How optimistic are you about thelong-term prospects for human
existence?
(Karina Korostelina) Oh, I'm very optimistic. I'm superoptimistic. First of all. Yes.
What we see now, it'sa lot of violence, wars,
but if you look intodynamics of mankind through
centuries, we in much betterplace than we were before.
(39:33):
(Gregory Washington) You know, nobody makes thatpoint. But it is absolutely true.
We have progressivelygotten better, not worse.
(Karina Korostelina) Absolutely. Absolutely. Look atit, women have now rights to vote.
Women have opportunity, right to be equal.
We look into more progressivelyaccepting gay marriage, for example,
(39:54):
right? In multiple countries,
the torture is now considered illegal. Uh,
there are people responding tothe war. Is it perfect? Not yet.
But we go in there.
There are more awareness about moreincreased and more don't they work with
young generation? Youknow, it's unbelievable.
You see results of theprojects across the globe,
(40:18):
then you see what people develop as aresult of us bringing them knowledge and
skills. This is what keep usgoing. People who work in a very,
very traumatized situation whenit's very hard. As a scholars
who work in conflicts, wehave to recognize we're also traumatized by exposure.
But in the same time, ability to seethe change is what keep us going.
(40:41):
And I have a strong optimism and mankindand I believe we're going into better
place slowly.
(Gregory Washington) I appreciate that. Well,we'll end it on that positive note.
And this has been quitean education.
You have touched on far more thanUkraine. Thank you to our guest,
Karina Korostelina,
professor of conflict analysisand resolution in Mason's,
(41:05):
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter,
School of Peace and Conflict Resolution.
I am Mason President GregoryWashington saying, until next time,
stay safe. Mason Nation.
(Narrator) If you like what you heard on thispodcast, go to podcast.gmu.edu.
for more of Gregory Washington'sconversations with the thought leaders,
(41:27):
experts,
and educators who take onthe grand challenges facing our students, graduates in
higher education. That's podcast.gmu.edu.
(Narrator) Trailblazers in research innovators intechnology and those who simply have a
good story all make up the fabricthat is George Mason University.
Where taking on the grand challenges thatface our students, graduates and higher
education is our mission and our passionhosted by Mason President Gregory
Washington. This is theAccess to Excellence podcast.
(00:26):
(Gregory Washington) At George Mason University, we are on arelentless quest to transform the world,
and that means we don'tnecessarily play it safe.
Karina Korostelina is the epitome of that,
the Professor of Conflict Analysisand resolution at George Mason's,
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peaceand Conflict Resolution is a tireless
(00:47):
advocate for peace andreconciliation on a global scale.
A social psychologist whose work focuseson the dynamics of identity and power
and protracted social conflicts.
Dr. Korostelina was recently in Polandinterviewing Ukrainians displaced
by war with Russia,
and she was doing this for a studyfunded by the National Science Foundation
called the Cost of Peace (01:09):
War Experience,
territorial Loss and PeaceAgreement Consensus in Ukraine.
She was in Rwanda for the WorldConference on Reconciliation,
which is put on by the InternationalAssociation of Reconciliation Studies of
which she is vice president and in Kenya,
Dr. Korostelina is part of a three yearproject to revamp the way the US
(01:33):
State Department mitigates conflictsbetween groups and countries.
In addition, she has had 11 residentialfellowships, including the Fulbright,
the Rockefeller, and withthe Woodrow Wilson Center.
And her research has beensupported by 46 grants.
That's an impressive resume.Karina Korostelina, welcome to the show.
(01:53):
(Karina Korostelina) Thank you very much. It's such an honor,but also a great pleasure to be here.
Thank you.
Gregory Washington) Well, outstanding. Well look,we're gonna jump right into this.
This is obviously a really,
really important topic inlight of current events.
So set the basic stage here.You are Ukrainian from Crimea,
is that correct?
(Karina Korostelina) Yes, I was born in Crimea.
(02:13):
I went to university and got mydegrees in Kyiv.
division and it's very, veryemotional of course for me.
But it's also give me opportunity todeeply dig into dynamics of conflict.
(Gregory Washington) I found that when your researchhits close to home and in your case
(02:37):
physically so,
it provides an extramotivation to deal with
the difficult times when a proposalmight be rejected or you didn't get a
fellowship that you want,
or you got a graduate studentor an undergraduate who's struggling to understand
and learn a concept.
And it's frustrating trying to getthem to understand what's happening.
(02:58):
You can look back and say, Hey, butI'm in this business for this reason,
and so I want to commend you onyour life's work is actually solving
a global problem.
(Karina Korostelina) Thank you. And uh, you'recompletely right. First of all,
then you submit proposals. You do notreceive all of them. That's right.
So I always tell my students in academic,life is full of rejections. You,
(03:22):
you have to be ready for it.
But you have to understand thatevery rejection is an opportunity to
improve your proposal, opportunityto develop a better article.
And that's why we have thisgreat ability to really
receive a lot of projects anddevelop them in a way which
(03:42):
supported by the major foundations.
(Gregory Washington) Now, you haven't been to Ukraine sincethe conflict started. Is that accurate?
(Karina Korostelina) Yes. Mm-hmm.
Okay, so how do you conduct your research giventhat you're not really accessing the
country?
(Karina Korostelina) My way of doing research in multiplecountries, including Ukraine,
is always to support as muchas possible local scientists,
(04:04):
local researchers, local students.
So when we get the grant fromNational Science Foundation,
all data,
and we conducted morethan 2,300 surveys and
90 in-depth interviews withrefugees and people affected by war,
all of them were conducted andcollected by local research institutions
(04:27):
and scholars, and students. Butat the same time, for me,
it's very important ininterpretation to stay as close to
results,
to stay as close as data and themeanings which people produce.
So I went to Poland,
I went to Czech Republic several timesto explore and speak with refugees,
(04:50):
to understand through deep conversationwhat meaning they attached to particular
phrase, to particular ideas,
which really helped me in myinterpretation of results.
(Gregory Washington) Well, you talk about the local connection,
and that's an interesting conceptbecause the reality is what you see
in many conflicts is a tendencytowards kind of a homogeneous identity
(05:13):
and the Ukrainian conflict.
This war is very interesting in that youmentioned earlier from Crimea, right?
Well, Crimea was annexed by Russiaeven before this conflict started,
and there are significant populationsof Russians in Crimea as well as
other groups. So when you start to talkabout local, how is that playing out?
(05:34):
Because the individuals in Crimea,would they be in support of,
would they be against what'shappening in the rest of the Ukraine?
How do those pieces meldwhen the population is
mixed?
(Karina Korostelina) Yeah, this is a very,
very good question because whatwe notice in multiple conflicts,
especially then it'sevolved war intervention.
(05:58):
Then it's involved mass violence,
that societies tend to become morehomogeneous because they do need
to come together to addressthreats, to address war dynamics.
But in this process of homogenization,
voices of different minorities aresilenced, for example, in Ukraine.
(06:21):
Now, of course there is a strongpatriotic feeling in my research,
but also in the researchof other scholars,
we see huge increase in importanceof Ukrainian national identity.
But unfortunately in the same time,
it's hijacked by people whorepresent national identity as
just ethnic only Ukrainian,
(06:43):
not given voices to other peoplebeing contributors and loyal
contributors to the nation.
Because the difference between ethnicand national is very important.
That's why it's create a lot ofproblematic dynamics within the
country, not just Ukraine,but we see it in Georgia.
We see it all over the world.
(07:04):
(Gregory Washington) Right. My understanding in Georgiathough it's a little different.
There is a real underpinningof backlash against the
Russians in Georgia, in Crimea,which is part of Ukraine.
At least on the surface, it doesn'tseem that there's as much resistance.
I don't want to use the word acceptance,it might be too strong of a word,
but there is clearly somehomogeneous identity that has
(07:29):
been adapted to over the years that ledup to this conflict. Is that accurate?
(Karina Korostelina) Crimea is a very interesting case.
So there are a lot of people whoshare Russian cultural identity,
but it doesn't mean theyare loyal to Russian state.
It's a very different type of identity,very different types of connection.
(07:51):
And then Crimea was takenby Russian Federation
in moment of several hours,people who can leave. Again,
we have to understandthat leaving the country,
it means that you have to beready to find job another place.
You have to be healthy, right? Ifyou're sick, you could not really leave.
If you are old, you could not leave.So only people who could leave,
(08:15):
they left as much as theycan. Those who remained,
not all of them loyal andwant to be in Crimea,
many of them just could not move. Butalso resistance in Russian Federation,
it's very hard.
I read these interviews for peoplewho were under Russian occupation now
in three territoriesand the level of terror,
(08:36):
level of control, killingpeople, torturing people.
I hosted a group of Ukrainian womenwho were tortured by Russian soldiers
just because they were somehowprotesting or just were wives of
soldiers. The level ofterror, it's unbelievable.
So for people to resist,
you have to have a lot of realcourage and not every person can.
(09:00):
So that's why the wholeissue of reintegration
of territories, whichwill come up pretty soon,
as soon as Ukraine will free more andmore territories, will be one of the key
issue for Ukrainian.
(Gregory Washington) This whole idea of integrating territoryis one that's gonna be a difficult
(09:20):
one, right? How dangerous is it fora country not to see itself as a
multicultural entity and then listen tothe voices of some minority groups in
order to make itself whole?
(Karina Korostelina) It's very dangerous because we justcompleted a very interesting study,
which was lead, actually it's continue.We bring it on the next level,
(09:42):
but the study was analysisof 15 peace processes
across the globe.
And I conducted this analysisbased on identity dynamics,
which is completely new type of approach.
And what I found in additionto many other factors,
that if nation createsmulticultural or civic
(10:03):
based on connection to the state identity,
that peace processes sustained. If not,
if country promote ethnic concept ofnational identity, peace processes fail.
(Gregory Washington) So they fail if theyhave some national identity?
(Karina Korostelina) They fail if there is an ethnicconcept of national identity,
(10:23):
if only one group havecontrol over other groups,
if other minorities perceivedas less capable or less
able or the access to power andresources defined by ethnicity,
then peace processes failed becauseit's, it's not inclusive society.
That is phenomenal. That issuch a nascent concept.
(10:47):
I don't know if people reallycatch what you just said there,
because that is notjust true for countries.
I think that's true for societies ingeneral. I mean, I say not for countries,
I mean not for countrieswho are undergoing conflict, right? I think in general,
inclusive societies workbest and societies that are
(11:09):
ruled or dominated by one group,
especially if that group isnot a overwhelming significant
majority leads to conflict andproblems. I think you're really,
really onto somethingwith this line of work.
(Karina Korostelina) Yeah, you're completely right.
And I'm glad that you broughtMason because we always speak Mason Nation, right?
(11:29):
And the ideaof the nation, as you know,
we were developed during Middle Ages aswas really connection to one students
of the university, which self,self govern around themselves.
And this really brings us to theidea that membership in the nation,
it's equal independent of whatyour ethnicity, race, religion,
(11:51):
gender, everyone equal and everyonehave equal responsibilities,
but also equal rights.
And this also can be applied to anation and development of the nation.
So liberal civic concept of thenation is much more important for
countries in the war recovering from thewar, for example, for Ukraine.
(12:13):
So if you counterposeUkraine as civic liberal nation to
totalitarian Russia ismuch better way to get out
of the whole dilemmasof justice and peace and
homogeneity and minoritiesthan if you present ethnic
Ukrainian nation in comparisonwith Russian ethnic nation.
(12:38):
That makes a lot of sense. So let'sdeal with the proverbial,
you would say elephant in theroom, but let's make it different.
Let's deal with theproverbial bear in the room.
If you go through thisreconciliation process,
if you go through thisintegration of territory process,
because at some point in time thisconflict has to end one way or the other,
right? How does one trust the Russiansafter what just happened with Prigozhin?
(13:00):
How do you know thatinfluential leaders in Ukraine,
influential leaders of this conflict,
influential individuals behindthe war in the resistance won't be
picked off one by oneby Russians over time?
(Karina Korostelina) This is a very,
very good question becauseof course you could not trust
Putin regime,
(13:20):
but there is a big difference betweenPutin regime and Russian people and even
people in Ukraine realize it.
Then we ask in our survey what emotionspeople experienced about Russian
leadership and Russian people.
We saw pretty significantdifference around hate and anger
(13:40):
and other negative emotions,
which usually we around 9.8,
nine point 10 on a one to 10scale for leadership.
But we around probably sevenor eight on four people,
so it's still very high.
But we see the difference andreconciliation process is very long
process. And if we look at for example,
(14:03):
classic reconciliationbetween Germany and France,
it took years after the violencestop for leaders to start
reconciling and still then the proposedreconciliation was a lot of resistance
from people.
For me it's more important isreally reconciliation for now,
which is more pressing issue,reconciliation between the territories,
(14:27):
which will be freed and Ukraine itself,
because there are a lot ofvoices invest in Ukraine,
which were not mostly affectedonly by some rocket attack,
very negative perception of the peoplewho were under unoccupied territories accusing
them. All of that happened. And again,it's not dynamic unique to Ukraine.
You see it in Colombia,
(14:48):
you see it in many other countries whoundergone situations and territories
belong to opposition or to differentcountries.
And this accusation really brings thisvery strong tension between justice and
peace. Are you bringing everyone tojustice? How you bring them to justice?
You could not put everyone inprison. You need to find mechanism,
local mechanisms of accountabilityon restorative justice,
(15:13):
but in the same time mechanism whichhelp to win hearts and minds of people.
because ifyou want them to be loyal citizens,
you really need to createfor them inclusive,
overarching identities theywill be happy to live in.
(Gregory Washington) There's an identitypart to that that I get,
but there's a second part to thisreconciliation piece that I want you to
(15:33):
address. Mm-hmm.
you publish a paper examiningthe meaning of justice in the
aftermath of war in Sudan.And in that paper you wrote,
your study demonstrates that therespondents also saw the advancement
of justice as returning to thepeaceful time in the aftermath
of war. How do you balance that?
(15:54):
(Karina Korostelina) This is a very,
very deep and great questionbecause together with my colleague Daniel Rothbart,
we conducted analysis ofover 100 oral stories,
oral histories of peopleaffected by violence in Sudan and
one unexpected result, butvery exciting result of it.
(16:14):
That how people perceivethe justice really depends
not only on addressing violence,
but also how they imaginetheir peaceful time.
Usually in court of justice,international criminal court,
other juveniles investigationsusually concentrates on what
(16:36):
is done right? What typeof violence were committed,
what type of mass violence affectedthe entire region or what were done
to particular individual?
But nobody really ask how doyou see the peaceful time?
And what we found thatdepending on the region,
and we analyzed three regions in Sudan,they had very different perceptions.
(16:57):
What pieces? For one group, itwas really community coherence,
very close kinship between people.
For other group it was prosperityand economic development.
And for another group it was absent ofviolence and ability of them to move
freely. So this three different views,
(17:17):
what peace is completely defined,how they see the justice.
(Gregory Washington) I get that part of it.Mm-hmm.
but if somebody killed your mother,
if somebody killed your brother oryour sister and you are going through a
reconciliation process andthese individuals had given
up and were shot in the back of the head,
(17:40):
there is a crime and ajustice aspect to that.
And that has to be reconciled too right?
Now going to very deep territory.Yeah. And I love it.
and I love it. Exactly.
So it's actually veryinteresting because usually.
(Gregory Washington) Because this is some of the stuff we'rehearing about what's happening in
Ukraine.
(Karina Korostelina) Yeah, exactly. You're completely right.
(18:01):
And usually research on howexposure to violence impacts support
for peace and reconciliation.
We were analyzing impact ofviolence in the general term.
People who under occupation,
people who were affectedby paramilitary and so on.
In research I'm doing right now inUkraine, we actually measure it.
(18:22):
It separately, if you affectedand your properties affected,
you are displaced or you havesomebody killed who you love.
And what we found that thosewho lost property or were
displaced,
they are more supportive of peace andreconciliation than those who were not.
But those who lost a lovedone or close friends,
(18:46):
they're actually more supportivefor continuous fighting.
They strongly against any peacenegotiation because for them
to deal with this trauma,
it's very important to createthe meaning why it's happened.
And the meaning of it is that weneed to free all territories and
reconciliation will never come.So this is very important dynamic,
(19:09):
which were not actually discoveredbefore in science of analyzing war,
but will also impact how we deal withreconciliation. Because for these people,
you have to bring new meaning.
And this meaning can be brilliant tojustice everyone who is responsible,
but this meaning also will be buildinga new life and given opportunity for
(19:30):
their children to enjoy new peaceful life.
So it's all usually workwith ability of people to
address the main importantvalues when they have, and again,
it's a very long processwhich require very targeted,
specific approach.
You could not apply reconciliationto everyone in the same way.
(19:51):
(Gregory Washington) I agree with that becausethere are different experiences with reconciliation as
you clearly have highlighted.
And the justice part of that I think isstill the most difficult part, right?
Because when they feel thatjustice has not been served,
they carry a level of revenge withthem throughout life and it tends to
cause the conflicts to reignite becausethat feeling of justice that has not
(20:14):
been served. And that's the challenge.
(Karina Korostelina) But it's very interestingthat you bring in that,
because I just came from Rwanda and I wasable to talk to a lot of people there,
including minister of nationalunity. Mm-hmm.
but also with local people and localscholars with people who work in museums.
There are multiple museums of genocidein Rwanda mm-hmm.
(20:35):
And one of the very importantwisdom which came from these people
is that yes, you can livewith sadness and revenge,
but then all your life isthere. You live in the past,
you will never look in the future.
(Gregory Washington) No, I understand that.
(Karina Korostelina) And this is what Rwandais doing right now.
It's really trying to develop visionof the future and pride of a country
(20:58):
which we're able to overcome.
And this pride as asocial identity scholar,
I know how much self-esteemimportant for people to overcome
issue related to violence. There are stilltraumas, of course it's long process,
but giving people alternative,looking into common future,
(21:19):
this approach that stop looking inthe past and you free yourself, right?
You free yourself with it, but you haveto be sure that justice has achieved it.
International institution,
national institutions working hardto achieve justice and bring those
who are responsible to justice.
(Gregory Washington) I understand. So as a Ukrainian,
(21:40):
how personal is yourresearch in your country?
(Karina Korostelina) Of course it's very personaland actually science helps
to deal with it. Mm-hmm.
because I look at thisissue as a scientist.
I was very happy thatNational Science Foundation,
acted very quickly and withinseveral months of beginning of war,
(22:02):
we were able to get a grant and startresearch because then you are analyzing it
as a scientific process. It'shelped to deal with emotions,
but at the same time as I teach mystudents and because you know at Carter
School, students come from allover the world. (Gregory Washington) That's right.
(Karina Korostelina) They all affected by deepconflict. Not only in world,
but here in the United States too.
(22:23):
(Gregory Washington) No, I agree with you.
(Karina Korostelina) Yes, absolutely. And formany people what they study,
it's very personal and it's actuallygood because they understand dynamics.
But it's very important alwaysto reflect how your meaning,
how your positions impacted. Andthere are ways to do it. For example,
then I write results,I present it to groups,
(22:45):
which I know very opposite in views.
And I hear from both of themand see if my research actually
pretty objective or ifthere are my biases,
which I did not recognize.Mm-hmm.
it's actually might be interestedbecause speaking about domestic issue,
I published just before Trumpwas elected, unfortunately,
(23:05):
but I hope it will beearlier, but took longer.
I published the book TrumpEffect
(Gregory Washington) Really?
(Karina Korostelina) Yes.
Where I analyze how he empowers people
through different types of aggressions,through different types of insults,
through different types of increasingtheir self-esteem through favorable
comparison.
(23:25):
So I show multiple mechanismswhy people love Trump.
And I was speaking about thisbook, of course I had my bias,
but I tried to present this book asobjective as possible to be scientific as
possible because people who agreewith me already agree with me, right?
People who disagree with me, if theysee my bias, they will never read it.
(23:48):
So this is very important to reach acrossthis. As I always tell students, yes,
our field is very normative.We want peace,
but at the same time we need toreach to people who disagree with us.
(Gregory Washington) Right.
Have you lost contact with any of thoseyou've been working with in Ukraine?
Do you know anyone who's losttheir lives in the conflict?
(Karina Korostelina) Unfortunately, yes.Just before we started,
(24:11):
I was working with severalprojects in Ukraine.
One was in Kherson, Mariupol and Kharkiv.
Everyone now knows these three cities.
And I know that several malefaculties mm-hmm.
which I was working with, werekilled. Personally,
and I know that a lot of students whichwe were teaching also were affected.
(24:32):
(Gregory Washington) So as a scientist, as someonewho does research, right,
do you find in any way that theemotions of that, these are people who
you do, who you engage with,
who in some cases may haveeven have been friends.
Does it affect how youapproach the science?
(Karina Korostelina) It definitely does, right?We, we are emotional people,
(24:53):
but there are specialways how to deal with it.
And there are developed social scienceapproaches because we know then we
interpret results. We introduceour meaning in it.
We are not objective people.
So it's very important toalways reflect on your biases.
And I also teach students to, in everypaper they write, have a reflection part,
(25:15):
a small outer analysis or
anthropological review of yourself, right?
Some reflection which show howyou belonging to particular group,
how you belonging to group,especially, which is affected,
especially victimized. How it'saffect how you analyze things.
And there is a very interestingtheory, which I love.
(25:38):
It's actually development theory,
but I bring it all this to conflictanalysis and resolution. Kegan Theory,
which describe level of moralityand on a thief's level of
morality is they you actually ableto recognize yourself as a member
of different groups and howbelonging to groups impact your
(25:58):
behavior. Mm-hmm.
And this is the highestlevel of moral perception,
which I hope we develop amongour students in the school.
(Gregory Washington) Oh, that's great.
Because if we could helppeople incorporate or
understand how their biases affect theirwork and that's gonna make them better
(26:19):
researchers and better scientists onthe back end, if you're a journalist,
it's gonna make you a better journalist.If you're a social scientist,
it's gonna make you a bettersocial scientist, right?
If you're a psychologistand you're looking at,
it's gonna make you a better one.
So that's really good stuff to helppeople work through that as they are
learning these issues, right.?
We have a number of Ukrainian studentshere at Mason and some of them may make
(26:41):
their way through your classes. Andin the context of this conflict,
they're gonna have to understand,
I'm not saying you leave your emotionsor you check 'em at the door. No, no, no.
You have them,
but understand how to utilizethem positively in the outcomes
that you hope to achieve inthe work that you're doing.
(Karina Korostelina) Yeah. I strongly believethat understanding how your
(27:04):
belonging to group impactyou. Mm-hmm.
it's very important and it's reflect this.
One of the key actually dilemmasof our humanity is this dilemma
between security and freedom. If youare free and you want to be free,
you have all your perceptions,ideas, values, your own right.
You're free from judgmentof other groups and so on.
(27:26):
But you are not protected because nogroup will come and protect you. To
get protection of the group, youhave to join group and become loyal.
And loyalty means that youchange your own perceptions,
ideas belong values to group.
Now you feel like group,you perceive like group,
(27:47):
your values become group values.
And in this dynamic you have to findbalance between security you need and
freedom you want. (Gregory Washington) Oh, I see.
(Karina Korostelina) And it's okay if you are living insociety which have low level of violence,
but if you live in society, which hashigh level of violence, can be structural,
it can be cultural, it can beopen violence. In this situation,
(28:10):
people tend to have protection.So they give up their own freedom,
their own thoughts, their ownideas to become protected.
They start thinking like group.And the more they think like group,
the more they see threat from othergroups and the more they see threat from
other groups, the more they think likegroups. So it's become vicious spiral.
(28:31):
which impact dynamics of societies.
(Gregory Washington) Oh wow. The knowledge you aregiving now goes far beyond Ukraine.
(Karina Korostelina) Thank you.
(Gregory Washington) So speaking of that, let'stake it into the classroom.
You have all this informationabout Ukraine, the war,
how people feel about peace andyou're in the Carter school.
How do you incorporate that into yourclassroom and how do you incorporate that
(28:53):
into.
teaching?
(Karina Korostelina) This is great that my abilityto travel to get grants and
work in multiple countries. I donework in more than 25 countries.
I stop counting and Ibring it to my classroom.
Every time I go to any place,
I am able to bring them firsthandinformation about dynamics of conflict.
(29:14):
In this particular place Iwork was like for example,
we just finished a project in Lebanon,
which I was working with youngpeople across sectarian divide.
And this insights of young peoplewere so useful for me to bring
to the classroom.
But also it's sometimes help tochange the way I teach the class.
(29:35):
We had project with Serbia withUniversity of Nis where students in
my class and students in Serbia,
we actually conducted parallelresearch on the same topics.
And then we had a huge conference lastMay where students from two countries
presented the research relatedto minorities to dynamics of
(29:55):
inclusion. It's a great opportunitythat what we doing as researchers,
as practitioners,
then we're bringing it to ourclassroom and next by our students.
(Gregory Washington) One of the things that our students sayand what we like to say at Mason is that
we are a diverse campus, broadlydiverse, fiercely inclusive.
We talk about us being the most diversecampus in our state. Because of that.
(30:19):
Do you find that our students are moreopen to understanding and overcoming the
conflicts that emanate from many of theissues in which you deal with and that
being culture and identity?
(Karina Korostelina) This is so interesting vision becausejust yesterday I started teaching
undergrad class on socialidentity, culture and conflict.
And this is what we had. I askedstudents, we went around and I asked,
(30:42):
what is your exposure to conflict?How you understand conflict?
And a lot of them will bring inexactly their racial or ethnic or
cultural heritage. It's howit's impacted their life,
their feeling of inclusion orexclusion. This was very interesting.
Then they interpret conflict,
many of them as dealing withdiversity and being able
(31:06):
to thrive. Mm-hmm.
(Gregory Washington) Right. No, I hear you.
If you were to boil down yourgoals in terms of your classes and
what you want to teach, be able toboil that down into a set of outcomes.
What do you hope studentstake away from your classes?
(Karina Korostelina) I think my major goal is empowerment.
(31:29):
Knowledge is just a tool to givestudents opportunity to make
a change.
So my major goal is to give opportunityof student to realize that they can
make a change.
How they can make a change and givethe belief that they can do it.
(Gregory Washington) Hmm. That's good. Ireally, really like that.
Let's switch gears here one more time.
(31:50):
You're part of a projectthat will basically,
for lack of a better way of putting this,
recreate the way in which the StateDepartment deals with groups and countries
that are in conflict. What is the goal?
(Karina Korostelina) This is a very excitingproject, which we very proud of.
I'm PI and I'm working with SusanAllen, who is my colleague at school.
(32:11):
So this project concentrate on ContactTheory and Contact Theory in two
worlds.
It's something then describe how webring different group together to create
social cohesion, to address polarization,
to create local governments,to enforce civic society.
So a lot of resulting fromjust bringing group together.
(32:33):
And what we found and State Departmentfound that it does not really work
as it should be. It's not justlike you bring people together,
they tokens and now they change. Right.It doesn't work this way. Mm-hmm.
which first to analyzeexisting literature,
bringing a lot of new fields in it,
(32:55):
complexified developing newanswers and new tools. Mm-hmm.
and next step,
extremely exciting, when we willgo to different countries and
do experimental design,see what works better?
Let's put group together in thisway or in this way. For example,
(33:17):
one of the major misrepresentationsthat you bring groups together,
decrease the identity, develop friendship,
and then they will go and change theircommunities. Nope. Doesn't work that way.
(Gregory Washington) It.
doesn't work.
(Karina Korostelina) No. Because they know, seeeach other as person to person,
but it doesn't impact the perceptionof other group. It's actually recreate,
we call this counter stereotypes.Yeah. But actually enforced stereotypes.
(33:42):
(Gregory Washington) You, you said something there becauseI've seen this in my own life, right?
Uhhuh,
(Gregory Washington) And so let me make sureI understand what you're saying here.
You're saying, okay,
you got two groups of individuals whofor whatever reason they don't get along,
they don't like each other,different ideologies.
You find a way to bring these groupstogether so that they can have
conversations, they can talk. Mm-hmm.
(34:05):
but when they go back, theybasically make an exception. Mm-hmm.
For the people who they builtthe friendships with, right?
(Karina Korostelina) Absolutely. Theydo not work across divide.
(Gregory Washington) And then, but when they go back,
they keep the same beliefs of the groupthat they had when they came together.
(Karina Korostelina) Yes, and then.
(Gregory Washington) See I don't that, that'scounterintuitive to me.
(Karina Korostelina) Yeah.
This is because they see thatall other representative are
(34:27):
still very bad. Thereis some good of them,
but it's actually because they closeto us and we actually showing how
you can bring second level,how you now recategorize,
how you bring this identitiesback in this interaction without
destroying the friendship. Sohow you create dual identity,
(34:50):
overarching identity.
So the three step process insteadof simplistic one step process.
So then they get back,
they actually see others andthemselves as a members of the group,
but they also see a lot of commonalitiesbetween groups and it's changed
completely their ways. How theywill, it's one of the tools.
(Gregory Washington) What forces them to seethe commonalities?
(35:11):
Because there are specific tools,for example, deliberations,
how you bring deliberationsinto discussion.
There is a tool so called a gatewaygroups, for example, do dual-racial those.
(Gregory Washington) Yeah, yeah, yeah. (Karina Korostelina) Or a person who belongedto two different religions somehow,
wasn't one.
One religion or see more abilityto work across religion.
(35:34):
A lot of priests have this ability tounderstand more reflective way or you
bring people who work acrossnational level, for example.
(Gregory Washington) Now you bring those people into the group.
(Karina Korostelina) Yes. And they work as a catalyst.
(Gregory Washington) Oh, I see, I see
(Karina Korostelina) They really help. It's there again,
we identify at least ninedifferent tools which can help to
(35:55):
recategorize people together, whichwere not used before. So this,
that's is why we're very excited thatwe, (Gregory Washington) this is really good. (Karina Korostelina) Exactly.
It's will be a new age in Contact Theory.
(Gregory Washington) As we begin to wrap up here,
you just talked about this whole groupdynamics and how to make that work.
One of the things thatI think has happened,
it was always been a partof the American engagement,
(36:18):
but more so over the last fiveto 10 years is the growing
use and utilizations of insults.
Whether those insults be on socialmedia in the form of memes and the other
thing,
or whether they just beoutright verbal insults, right?
We see how that is playing out right here.
(36:38):
Donald Trump uses them constantly, right,
to denigrate his opponents and some seehim as a strong leader because of his
use of insults. It was a very,
very different way of engaging peoplethat he had that was different from pretty
much every other president preceding him.
How do you see insultsplaying a part in conflict?
(36:58):
How do you manage it when it comestime to try to bring people together to
resolve and have conflict resolution?
(Karina Korostelina) You are so right.
I also notice this increaseddynamics several years ago and I
just decided, okay,
what we have in social scienceabout insults, and I found that
it's actually good news andbad news for me. Bad news,
(37:20):
there are no coherenttheory to analyze insults.
But it's also good news. Thereare no coherent theories
So I can develop one.
(Gregory Washington) So you can develop that. Yes, exactly.
(Karina Korostelina) So, and then I published this book withthe Oxford University press because I
analyze insults as a mutual act onthe border between two individuals or
(37:41):
two groups, analyze it on differentlevels, individual intergroup,
international level.
And what the key on thistheory is that insult is
actually indicative of the needs.
What particular personinsulter has. People insult,
not because they just misbehaveor in incivility or something.
(38:05):
Insult is representation.
What is missing in people needs.Mm-hmm.
those who use identity insult,
they have issues with self-esteem.Those who use legitimacy insult,
they have issue with recognizingtheir own power or being recognized
by others. So thosewho use relative insult,
(38:28):
those people have issue withaccepting them as equal people.
So every time then what this bookhelped and to realize if you know
what insult people are using,
you actually can use it against themor together with them if you are
willing to work with them andrecognizing what their needs are.
(38:49):
So you able to bring more negotiation,
more abilities to address theconflict. Mm-hmm.
So instead of beingjust offended by insult,
use it as a tool of information.
(Gregory Washington) Right. Last question. You've seen war,
you've studied the human condition andhow we're prone to conflict and how
(39:10):
we're prone insults.
How optimistic are you about thelong-term prospects for human
existence?
(Karina Korostelina) Oh, I'm very optimistic. I'm superoptimistic. First of all. Yes.
What we see now, it'sa lot of violence, wars,
but if you look intodynamics of mankind through
centuries, we in much betterplace than we were before.
(39:33):
(Gregory Washington) You know, nobody makes thatpoint. But it is absolutely true.
We have progressivelygotten better, not worse.
(Karina Korostelina) Absolutely. Absolutely. Look atit, women have now rights to vote.
Women have opportunity, right to be equal.
We look into more progressivelyaccepting gay marriage, for example,
(39:54):
right? In multiple countries,
the torture is now considered illegal. Uh,
there are people responding tothe war. Is it perfect? Not yet.
But we go in there.
There are more awareness about moreincreased and more don't they work with
young generation? Youknow, it's unbelievable.
You see results of theprojects across the globe,
(40:18):
then you see what people develop as aresult of us bringing them knowledge and
skills. This is what keep usgoing. People who work in a very,
very traumatized situation whenit's very hard. As a scholars
who work in conflicts, wehave to recognize we're also traumatized by exposure.
But in the same time, ability to seethe change is what keep us going.
(40:41):
And I have a strong optimism and mankindand I believe we're going into better
place slowly.
(Gregory Washington) I appreciate that. Well,we'll end it on that positive note.
And this has been quitean education.
You have touched on far more thanUkraine. Thank you to our guest,
Karina Korostelina,
professor of conflict analysisand resolution in Mason's,
(41:05):
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter,
School of Peace and Conflict Resolution.
I am Mason President GregoryWashington saying, until next time,
stay safe. Mason Nation.
(Narrator) If you like what you heard on thispodcast, go to podcast.gmu.edu.
for more of Gregory Washington'sconversations with the thought leaders,
(41:27):
experts,
and educators who take onthe grand challenges facing our students, graduates in
higher education. That's podcast.gmu.edu.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!