Between Fiction and Reality in Post-Genocide Rwanda: Reflections on a Social-Psychological Media Intervention for Social Change

Musekeweya (New Dawn)

The main tool for delivering the educational messages is a weekly serial drama—titled Musekeweya or New Dawn—about a fictional intergroup conflict, which has been broadcast since 2004 (see http://www.labenevolencija.org). The main plot portrays the evolution and cycle of conflict and violence between two fictional villages (Bumanzi and Muhumuro), and more recently, the difficult path of reconciliation. The two fictional villages are situated on two opposing hills with a valley in between. Early in the drama listeners learn that a long time ago the government representatives gave sole property ownership of the fertile valley falling within the boundaries of the two villages to Bumanzi. The two villages have lived through years of land dispute because the farming land is limited and its quality varies from place to place. The fictional drama demonstrates how resentment from these past events, coupled with scarcity of resources due to a drought that affected Muhumuro the most, contributed to rising tensions and escalation of conflict. The tensions are further heightened due to different, though unnamed, ethnic identities. First, Muhumuro groups attacked Bumanzi, followed by later revenge attacks by Bumanzi on Muhumuro. After few acts and cycles of violence, the groups working for peace in both villages managed to stop the conflict, and initiated a process of reconciliation, justice, and peacebuilding (for more details on the story see Staub, 2011, pp. 369-372).

Despite some similarities with the Rwandan reality, such as unequal distribution of resources and power by a third party, the fictional plot is, in other ways, different from this reality. For instance, the fictional drama does not address genocide, and it does not intend to provide a narrative of the history and politics of the conflict in the pre- and post-genocide Rwanda. Rather its aim is to more generally raise awareness about the factors that contribute to the escalation of conflicts into violence and of the consequence of violence for individuals and communities.

How Does Musekeweya Influence Social Change?

The fictional story and its characters are very accessible to Rwandans. This is probably why Musekeweya attracts large segments of population (about 80% of the population tunes in, Staub et al., 2008), including people from rural backgrounds, different ideological groups, etc. Empirical and anecdotal evidence suggest that the drama speaks to Rwandans’ daily reality: Hundreds of listener letters sent to the producing organization show that Rwandans of different backgrounds personally relate to the story and identify with its characters. Because of its popularity, the serial drama has great potential to influence social and political norms related to conflict and reconciliation (see Paluck, 2009). For instance, in a year-long experimental field study to assess the impact of the Musekeweya in Rwanda at the end of the first year of its broadcast, Paluck (2009; Paluck & Green, 2009) found that listeners of Musekeweya exhibited social norms and behaviors in line with the goals of the program, including higher trust, empathy, cooperation, open dissent, and less social distance than the control group (i.e., listeners of a serial drama on health).

Furthermore, fiction is an appropriate and effective tool to communicate messages about sensitive topics such as intergroup violence and reconciliation, and can serve as a safe public forum to tackle real-life concerns, without posing explicit views about the conflict on the ground (Bilali & Vollhardt, 2013; Paluck, 2009). Group members’ beliefs about the conflict are informed by the ethos of conflict, which is resistant to transformation (Bar-Tal, 2007). Therefore, explicit perspectives and views that contradict people’s preexisting beliefs and experiences, or tell them what to think (e.g., Paluck, 2012), might be encountered with resistance, or create backlash. In contrast, fiction raises relevant issues in subtle and non-threatening ways, and therefore might be especially useful in shaping attitudes and behaviors in conflict settings. For instance, Johnson, Jasper, Griffin, and Huffman (2013) found that narrative fiction reduced implicit and explicit prejudice of Americans toward Arab-Muslims, partly by inducing empathy and reducing intergroup anxiety. Fictional narratives also encourage perspective-taking with various characters from both sides of the fictional conflict (Bilali & Vollhardt, 2013). Education-entertainment research suggests that the more listeners identify with the characters and immerse themselves in the narrative (i.e., psychological distancing from the reality), the more they will endorse beliefs and attitudes consistent with the subtle messages embedded in the narrative (Green & Brock, 2000). Listeners’ absorption in the narrative and their identification with the positive characters reduce the generation of counterarguments, thus increasing message persuasion (e.g., Slater & Rouner, 2002).

An important aspect of the drama design has to do with the balance between similarities and differences between fictional story and the Rwandan reality. On the one hand, similarities might help increase listener’s identification with the narrative and its characters. On the other hand, differences from the real conflict are important in order to reduce the likelihood that listeners identify themselves or their ethnic group with one of the fictional villages. That is, the intervention might not be successful if listeners take sides and use pre-existing schemas and beliefs about their conflict to understand the fictional story.

Every intervention operates within a socio-political system and a unique context of inter-group relations. Features of the context might either facilitate or inhibit an intervention’s effectiveness. For instance, there are at least two aspects of the Rwandan context that are important to consider when discussing an intervention to promote intergroup reconciliation: (1) the characteristics of intergroup relations in the post-genocide era, and (2) Rwanda’s approach to overcoming the genocide and reconciling the country. In the following, I will provide a quick summary of the main characteristics of post-genocide justice and reconciliation in Rwanda. Then, I will discuss how Musekeweya addresses some of the challenges of the current context of intergroup relations in Rwanda.

“We Are All Rwandans.” Creating a Common Identity by Suppressing Ethnic Identities

Research in social psychology has revealed the benefits of establishing an inclusive common identity: re-categorization of distinct subgroups into an inclusive superordinate category should produce positive intergroup attitudes as former out-groups are considered in-group members at the superordinate level (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). For instance, superordinate national identification has been shown to relate to positive intergroup outcomes in post-conflict settings in Bosnia (Čehajić, Brown, & Castano, 2008), Chile (Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008), and Lebanon (Licata, Klein, Saade, Azzi, & Branscombe, 2012). However, re-categorization to a superordinate category might also backlash and be resisted by group members, as it arouses distinctiveness threats (for a review see Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2007), especially in contexts of asymmetric power relations, where the inclusive category reflects the norms and characteristics of the dominant group (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). Recent evidence supports a dual identity model, which suggests that re-categorization to a common identity should produce more positive outcomes when subgroup identities are also recognized (Dovidio et al., 2007).

This reveals the problematic nature of the Rwandan government’s efforts to create national unity by suppressing ethnic identities. Rather than creating unity, the policy seems to have pushed discussions about ethnicity from the public to the private sphere. Ethnographic research in Rwanda demonstrates that ordinary Rwandans resist this policy (Thomson, 2011), and ethnic categorization is still persistent in the lives of Rwandans (Zorbas, 2009). Moreover, there is a high level of mistrust across ethnic lines (Longman, 2009), and a strong need to determine the ethnicity of the other, while at the same time concealing one’s ethnicity (Hilker, 2009). Such suppression might make ethnicity more salient and increase reliance on ethnic stereotypes to determine the other’s ethnicity (Hilker, 2009). Because there is no public space to challenge pre-existing stereotypes, people can only rely on them (e.g., physical stereotypes and political orientation) to draw conclusions about out-group members.

How does Musekeweya address group differences? At least two educational messages are relevant. One message emphasizes establishing commonality between groups through recognition of a shared humanity and construction of an inclusive vision for the future. Another message emphasizes the importance of recognizing group differences, and creating an open dialogue to address them. Prior antagonistic fictional villages create a shared vision for the society through discussions of their commonalities and differences. They form a common identity by breaking down and challenging group stereotypes, thus transforming rather than suppressing their group identities. For instance, the radio series portrays numerous discussions among its characters regarding the future of the two villages, and how they can work together to create a peaceful future despite their violent past. These discussions vary a lot, providing a variety of perspectives of how such collaborations might be set up. But they also include the voices of those who are skeptical or distrustful about the prospects of working together due to intergroup mistrust. Considering that discussions of ethnicity are outlawed in Rwanda, fiction provides a safe space to bring up issues related to group membership and negotiation of identities in the aftermath of violence.

While in principle discussions across group lines seem appropriate, the implementation of educational messages in such discussions is not straightforward, even in fiction. Open discussions and expressions of diverse perspectives with regard to sensitive and highly divisive issues might escalate conflict and reduce social cohesion, especially when the wounds of violence are still fresh (e.g., Paluck, 2010). Therefore, in the absence of models or guidelines for setting up intergroup discussions that take into account the history of the conflict and the ongoing political context, the implementation of the message might be superficial, and might even have unintended consequences. For instance, Rwanda has a complex history of conflict and power dynamics between its ethnic groups. The radio program does not address how such dynamics might impact intergroup discussions and the negotiation of a common identity.

Encouraging Positive Intergroup Contact and Cross-Group Friendships

One message of the serial drama focuses on encouraging meaningful and high-quality contact among group members. In line with this, the serial drama models and encourages positive intergroup contact. Therefore, imagined intergroup contact might be one mechanism through which the serial drama exerts its impact on listeners. Specifically, Musekeweya evokes imagery of a variety of interactions with individuals and group members associated with diverse views and perspectives. It provides models of intergroup contact by portraying members of the two villages as spouses, friends, neighbors or co-workers. They share food, help each other in times of distress, work together in community projects, and of course work to establish peaceful relations between villages. In this manner, the drama might influence listeners’ attitudes by evoking images of such inter-group interactions (Crisp & Turner, 2009). Recent research suggests that mental imagery of intergroup interactions has effects similar to real contact experiences by influencing emotional and motivational processes related to positive intergroup outcomes (Crisp & Turner, 2009; Turner & Crisp, 2010).

Importantly, the story walks listeners through a trust-building process. The characters are initially mistrustful and cautious about developing cross-group friendships, but trust is built over time as they start to know each other better. In doing this, Musekeweya gives voice to Rwandans’ fears and anxieties with regard to cross-group interactions, acknowledging the difficulties of building trust after a genocide in which a large number of killings involved neighbors and acquaintances. For instance, in the serial drama, group members who have undergone traumatic experiences are particularly distrustful of the other group; they are however encouraged to discuss their fears and anxieties with trusted friends and family, who support them in overcoming these fears. The characters also discuss the value of these interactions for transforming their opinions (i.e., stereotypes) and feelings about the outgroup.

Musekeweya portrays a realistic, though still optimistic, picture of the difficult road to reconciliation, by also highlighting potential breaches of trust. Sometimes negative characters intimidate or make plans to harm members of the community who might testify to their crimes. Such stories speak to some Rwandans’ real-life experiences in the aftermath of genocide and during the Gacaca process. In these cases, the focus of the drama is on the community’s actions in preventing and coping with these acts, and inhibiting their potential to perpetuate further conflict and violence. Nevertheless, there is a risk that such portrayals might also serve as negative reinforcement, and have an undesirable impact by making listeners more cynical about the prospects of establishing positive relations with outgroup members. Furthermore, if listeners identify with the negative role models—a phenomenon known as Archie Bunker effect—then the show might reinforce rather than reduce negative intergroup outcomes (Singhal & Rogers, 2002).

Confronting the Past and Creating a Shared Collective Memory

Confronting the past is an important element in Musekeweya. This topic is the focus of one communication message that emphasizes the role of “establishing the complex truth about past group relations, and developing a shared view of history” to achieve intergroup reconciliation. This message is often implemented in conjunction with another message on “varied perspectives, open communication, and moderate respect for authority…” Instead of imposing a specific version of history, in the serial drama the conflictual past is addressed through a dialogic process that encourages expressions of diverse perspectives coming from different fictional characters, including victims, bystanders, and perpetrators. It is through this process that a common narrative is created about the roots of conflict and its consequences on intergroup animosity. Although the show gives voice to perspectives on both sides of the conflict, it does so within a common normative framework that condemns violence, hostility, and discrimination (e.g., Gibson, 2004).

In a recent study, Bilali and Vollhardt (2013) assessed whether Musekeweya influenced people’s willingness to engage with different versions of history. After a six month period during which the ‘confronting the past’ message was embedded in the drama, researchers used priming as a method to assess the radio drama’s impact. Participants completed an audio-delivered questionnaire in which the items were recorded either in the voice of one of the positive characters of the radio drama or in the voice of an unknown actor. To avoid demand characteristics, participants were kept blind to the study’s goals and its connection to Musekeweya until after they completed the questionnaire. Listeners who were primed with Musekeweya through the voice of one of the characters were less likely to agree that their story of the conflict in Rwanda is the only true history, they were more likely to favor open expressions of different conflict narratives, and reported higher engagement with the other group’s history of the conflict (Bilali & Vollhardt, 2013). In addition, priming of the serial drama was also related to less competitive and more inclusive victimhood, both of which are linked to more positive intergroup outcomes (e.g. Noor et al., 2008; Vollhardt & Bilali, 2014).

These findings are promising considering that other societal factors, including the Rwandan government’s efforts to impose a single narrative, might push in the opposite direction. However, it is also possible that this message might be especially appealing to those Rwandans who feel silenced due to the government’s efforts to disseminate a single narrative. Musekeweya might give voice to silenced narratives through the characters’ stories, increasing the impact of the serial drama. Because information about participants’ ethnicity and political orientation is not available, it is not possible to determine whether these factors moderate the effects of the radio drama.

Operating Within an Overarching Policy of Reconciliation

An intervention’s success is not only dependent on the validity of the theory of change it endorses, but also on the characteristics of the context, including other ongoing or previous interventions and policies. For instance, the education-entertainment campaign, despite its different approach, has goals consistent with Rwandan government’s stated policy (i.e., to promote reconciliation in Rwanda) as well as with other interventions focusing on intergroup reconciliation. Therefore, it is important to consider how such an overarching governmental reconciliation agenda might impact the reception and effectiveness of the intervention. In the third year of the program’s broadcast, Paluck (2007) asked listeners what they thought the messages and goals of Musekeweya are, and who produces it. The most popular answer pertaining to the goal of the program was “unity and reconciliation,” the umbrella term that the government uses to implement its reconciliation campaign and policies in Rwanda. At the same time, the vast majority of participants correctly identified Radio LaBenevolencija as the producer of the show. Thus, listeners do not identify the program with the government, but they view it as consistent with its reconciliation policy. It is unclear however, whether this enhances or reduces the effectiveness of the intervention. On the one hand, it is possible that such interventions might be particularly effective when operating under an overarching reconciliation policy. On the other hand, listeners who resent government’s policies might resist the program’s messages, thus reducing the overall effectiveness of the program. Answers to such questions have important practical implications as they inform the conditions and settings under which social-psychological interventions are most effective, or where they might create backlash.

Can Reality Constrain Fiction? Socio-Political Influences on the Development of the Intervention

Every year the local scriptwriters and staff, representatives of various civil society organizations and the Rwandan government, and a psychologist, come together to design the storyline of the following year of Musekeweya. Considering the diversity of stakeholders and opinions represented in these workshops, the storyline developed is often a negotiated product. Difficult discussions that I have witnessed during these workshops include questions such as: Should the fictive conflict be a victim-perpetrator story, or should it involve cycles of violence in which both groups were victims and perpetrators? What forms of justice are appropriate for perpetrators of violence? Should perpetrators be excluded from leadership positions after they serve their sentence? Because of the sensitivity of these topics, the fiction becomes a platform where contested perspectives are discussed and negotiated. Participants’ opinions are informed by their own backgrounds, experiences, and political orientations, but because these are not openly discussed, they can inadvertently influence the story and the communication of the messages. In this manner, the socio-political context shapes the boundaries of possible conflict and post-conflict representations in the fictive story.

Lost in Translation? Bridging the Gap Between Research, Theory and Practice

Moving research ideas and theories to social intervention and policy involves a multi-step translational process. The first step involves the identification of psychological principles that will serve as communication messages. In the edutainment approach, the messages are supposed to be accurate, concise, and considered agreed-upon facts (de Fossard, 2005). The second step constitutes the implementation of the psychological principle, for example by embedding it in a serial drama. Take for instance, an edutainment program promoting safe-sex practices: The message should raise awareness about the benefits of safe sex, provide specific instructions about its practice, and reveal the negative consequences of unprotected sex. Thus, a communication message identifies a cause-effect link (see de Fossard, 2005). Within the domain of intergroup conflict and reconciliation, it is harder to identify simple principles that we know for a fact to be universally accurate, and through which behaviors can be identified that have specific positive consequences for the individuals involved. For example, research suggests that intergroup mistrust has a negative impact on intergroup relations, whereas intergroup trust contributes to positive group relations (for a review see Tropp, 2008). Yet, under certain conditions, high trust might also make people more vulnerable to harm. For instance, Bhavnani and Backer (2000), in a study of localized violence in Rwanda and Burundi found that high levels of trust in community predicted intense episodes of violence, whereas low levels of trust predicted moderate though persistent violence. They reasoned that higher levels of trust made group members more vulnerable to attacks by misjudging out-groups’ trustworthiness, thus failing to take measures to defend themselves such as fleeing the area.

Furthermore, listeners are not passive recipients of the messages, thus we often can not predict how a message will be interpreted, or whether it will be misunderstood. As argued above, the conditions in the ground—the socio-political atmosphere and people’s relevant experiences—inform the goals and motivation of listeners, which in turn influence message reception.

Several steps can be taken to reduce potential errors at different stages of the translational process from theory and research to intervention. For instance, the following steps were taken in the production of Musekeweya: First, the psychological principles are discussed with local experts and representatives of different groups to assess their relevance and adapt them to the Rwandan context. A baseline research assesses the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of the target population, which in turn feeds into the design and scope of the intervention. Then, pilot programs are developed and tested. In ongoing formative research, listener groups are created and meet regularly to offer feedback on different aspects of the program (e.g., whether the messages are understood, whether the show is interesting, etc.). Lastly, periodic evaluation studies assess the impact of the intervention. Yearly design workshops re-evaluate the scope and focus of the intervention for the following year taking into consideration the changes in the socio-political context, the research findings, and feedback from the listeners.