Reflections on the Municipal Alliance for Peace in the Middle East
Peter Knip
Introduction
The Municipal Alliance for Peace in the Middle East (MAP) was a framework for Israeli-Palestinian municipal dialogue with contributions from foreign municipalities and their associations as well as other international actors.
MAP was established at a conference in The Hague in June 2005. Its founding was endorsed by 33 Israeli and Palestinian mayors in the presence of municipal representatives from 15 countries and a range of international organizations, including UN-Habitat, United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), UNDP, WHO, the Glocal Forum, and UNESCO.
MAP was run by an International Board consisting of the Association of Palestinian Local Authorities (APLA), the Union of Local Authorities of Israel, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People (UNDP/PAPP), United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), The Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG), The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), the European Network of Local Authorities for Peace in the Middle East (ELPME), the City of Hamar, the City of Rome, the City of Barcelona and the City of Cologne.
The President of the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) chaired the board.
The establishment of MAP was the culmination of a long process of preparations and dialogue between APLA, ULAI and their international partners including the cities of Athens, Barcelona, Rome and The Hague which started in the end of the nineties. Once MAP was established, a secretariat was created in Jerusalem. Its responsibilities and tasks were to support lobbying activities, assist in the formulation and implementation of concrete (trilateral) project proposals focused on palpable local results, coordinate and foster mutual learning, and mobilize resources.
National conflict dynamics between Israel and Palestine, in combination with the conflict between Fatah and Hamas within Palestine, the lack of sufficient support from the donor community, including financial constraints and managerial difficulties, made it very difficult to achieve concrete results. These circumstances created a culture of fear, which led to a declining willingness of both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides to continue and finally to the termination of MAP by the end of 2012.
Below more information is given about:
The process that preceded the establishment of MAP: 1999-2004
The establishment of MAP in 2005
The development and termination of MAP: 2005-2012
Reflections on lessons learned from this attempt by the world of local governments to contribute to peace.
The process that preceded the establishment of MAP: 1999-2004
At the request of Yasser Arafat, the first President of the Palestinian Authority, and with financial help from the Dutch government, the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) supported the establishment of the Association of Palestinian Local Authorities (APLA) in 1997. At that time, it was the first national association of municipalities in the Arab World. APLA’s participation in the World Organizations of Local Governments (IULA and UTO) quickly caused tensions.
In IULA, of which the VNG and the Union of Local Authorities of Israel (ULAI) were members, there were constant debates about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict between representatives of APLA and ULAI during meetings. It also endangered initiatives of rapprochement aimed at a merger between IULA and UTO (a process that led to a merger between the two organizations into UCLG in 2004) because UTO took a clearly pro-Palestinian position where IULA tried to remain neutral in the conflict.
Aware of the risks, IULA and especially its European section, CEMR facilitated a special meeting between delegates from APLA and ULAI in Barcelona in 1999 during the World Congress of IULA. It was agreed that APLA and ULAI would embark on a process of further dialogue. Subsequently, various exchange visits took place, and discussions were held hosted by international local government partners. These culminated in a meeting between the executive administrators of APLA and ULAI at an IULA/UTO meeting in Guadalajara in June 2002. At this meeting, the first practical ideas for cooperation, in the form of a joint municipal conference in Israel and Palestine and a municipal reconstruction program, were conceived. Due to the fact that both APLA and ULAI had a close partnership with and a lot of confidence in VNG, the VNG was asked to facilitate the further process of dialogue and cooperation.
Declarations were drafted, discussed and sometimes signed. For instance, in 2002, the ‘Rome Declaration’ was adopted (but not signed). This stated that ‘while aiming at a peaceful and secure solution to the problem, both sides should promote socio-economic as well as people-to-people co-operation on the local level for the purposes of rehabilitation, economic development and prosperity, as well as the sustainability of peace’. A meeting at the Wittenburg Estate near The Hague, facilitated by VNG, took place in January 2003. A very important common understanding was reached (the Wittenburg Declaration) on prevailing political issues, including violence and terrorism, Jerusalem, settlements, water, refugees, and borders. The remainder of 2003 saw no concrete progress, but the willingness of APLA and ULAI to cooperate was again confirmed in the signing of the ‘KEDKE Declaration’ at the invitation of the Central Union of Municipalities and Communes in Greece (KEDKE).
It goes without saying that the increased violence between Israel and Palestine severely undermined the confidence that national Israeli and Palestinian leaders would reach an agreement acceptable to both parties during this period between 1999 and 2004. After an earlier period of hope, the Oslo Accords (1993), the Interim Agreement (on West Bank and Gaza, 1995), the Wye River Memorandum (1998) and the Camp David summit (2000) resulted in little change on the ground. Subsequently, the second intifada started in 2000.
International visits ran into practical problems, such as the Israeli Defense Forces closing off roads after the Netanya hotel bombing in March 2002. The facilitation of a process of dialogue required much resilience before MAP was even established. Palestinian and Israeli municipalities alike suffered the effects of violence. Palestinian mayors and the national leadership were criticized by Israel and the international community for not making enough efforts to stop the bombings. Israeli and Palestinian mayors saw their municipalities hit by violent actions and subsequent retaliations, causing outcry over civilian casualties. Nevertheless, contacts on the local level were maintained, and agreements between APLA and ULAI that would form the basis for more elaborate cooperation were signed during this period.
General willingness to co-operate was there. There was still hope on the ground.
The conflict became more and more volatile in this period. In 2003, Israeli President Ariel Sharon and Palestinian then-Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas were still discussing the implementation of the Road Map for Peace. Abbas managed to persuade Hamas and Islamic Jihad to agree to a ceasefire. However, the truce disintegrated with a series of suicide bombings, raids and assassinations. The construction of the separation barrier was speeded up. In autumn 2004, Israeli forces entered Gaza after a series of rocket attacks. These events all had impacts on the development of MAP. There were few opportunities for Palestinian partners to travel to Palestine, and it was difficult for APLA to be represented at international meetings. For instance, a planned roundtable session preparing for the establishment of MAP in The Hague had to be canceled. When the declaration for the founding conference was discussed at a preparatory meeting later in 2005, a reference to the ‘Israeli occupation’ was deleted from the text.
Nevertheless, since a general agreement on political issues had already been reached in Wittenburg, MAP’s founding conference in The Hague could take place despite these difficult circumstances and focus on the objectives of MAP itself, such as initiating ‘on-the-ground cooperation through joint projects in Palestinian, Israeli and international partner municipalities, that are aimed at promoting lasting peace in the region’. The conclusion is that the overall conflict influenced the thoughts and attitudes of the involved parties and clearly resulted in obstacles and difficulties at the local level. However, the impact has not been as severe as one might have expected: it did not stop the process as a whole from progressing. The foundations for MAP were established.
Having been part of the Barcelona meeting in 1999 and all dialogue meetings and preparatory meetings for the establishment of MAP since Guadalajara 2022, I observed a special cultural phenomenon during many meetings. The meetings between the Israeli and Palestinian municipal administrators often followed the same course. It started with very sharp reciprocal accusations and fierce statements about what went wrong on the Israeli or Palestinian side in the presence of the international partners. There was often a tense atmosphere of conflict. The delegations hardly spoke to each other in the corridors. But during the first day, the request came to the president of the meeting (quite often to Wim Deetman, President of VNG) to meet as Israelis and Palestinians without international participation. Very often, they returned from this meeting with tears in their eyes, hands of Palestinian mayors around the shoulders of Israeli colleagues, and vice versa, speaking to each other. The subsequent dialogue was never completely without tension but was much more open, with a mutual willingness to look for solutions acceptable to both.
‘We’ as foreign mediators felt the complexity of the conflict, how the conflict holds both sides captive and how both sides longed for a peace beyond reach.
The establishment of MAP in 2005
In addition to the intensification of the political conflict, financial constraints and organizational weaknesses hindered the establishment of MAP.
Throughout MAP’s conception phase, the financing of activities was a continuous source of concern. Although VNG had accepted the invitation to facilitate the process, they had no budget to finance it. IULA and CEMR did not have a budget either, while APLA and ULAI expected that their travel costs to international meetings would be financed. On the one hand, several municipalities were prepared to cover the costs of reception during dialogue meetings. On the other hand, The Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs initially allowed VNG to draw on funds allocated to VNG International’s technical assistance work with APLA. Direct contacts between VNG board members and ministers were required to achieve this agreement. This ensured some stability at the operational level. A grant proposal submitted in 2002 to the EU Partnership for Peace Programme was unsuccessful, with the EU citing a lack of funds. However, the application feedback also identified significant concerns: ‘The proposed activities under the programme may be adversely affected by external circumstances that are beyond the direct control of the project. Particularly the security circumstances and travel restrictions on the West Bank can change rapidly, without prior notice.’
Early in 2004, however, the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs approved new funding for the dialogue through VNG. One might argue that the lack of finances in Palestine has been a positive, rather than a negative, influence on APLA’s willingness to participate in MAP. The logic being, that the lack of available finances from national Palestinian institutions increased the interest of Palestinian local authorities in tapping external funds. However, the uncertainty of funding for the process and the willingness of international parties in the process to finance the follow-up to the initiative have been a problematic factor in this phase of MAP’s development.
In the process towards MAP, the institutional weakness of APLA was certainly a handicap. APLA was a very new unexperienced association of municipalities with hardly any visibility and results for its members. Due to its institutional weakness within Palestine, not all municipalities were already members, and the membership fees were hardly paid, which was known to ULAI and reduced its credibility. ULAI had a longer tradition since 1938 and represented since 1953 all municipalities in Israel. Differences in organizational culture between the VNG and the associations in Israel and Palestine often slowed down the pace of progress. There was often annoyance from the Dutch side about the failure to fulfill agreements or to fulfill them too slowly by the partners in Palestine and Israel. Conversely, the proverbial Dutch directness was not always appreciated.
Last but not least one might see the differences in the motives for involvement between APLA and ULAI as a weak point. APLA had a utilitarian stance toward the idea of MAP. Its support was rooted in the needs of Palestinian municipalities. Its approach emphasized tangible, material results, because these legitimize the participation of local politicians. The dialogue, in this view, is instrumental in technical reconstruction. Another motive was that MAP was seen as a platform through which the plight of Palestinians could be brought to international attention. For ULAI, dialogue itself was the key activity: it emphasized people-to-people actions with the support of municipal leaders. Peace-building was an important focus of ULAI’s activities at that time.
Several other factors contributed more positively to the final establishment of MAP: the involvement of international partners, the involvement of associations of municipalities and the sustained local willingness to engage in dialogue. The support from international partners has been crucial for the establishment of MAP. Apart from the World Organization of Local Governments, UCLG, the support from the strongest national associations in the world (among others, Canada, France, UK, Netherlands), several big cities, and a few UN agencies like UNDP/PAPP was essential to keep the process going. The leadership of the local government associations, especially those of APLA and ULAI, were of tremendous importance in the phase leading up to MAP. A politically charged process will not take root if the involved mayors are only speaking on behalf of their own municipalities. A mechanism to bring in the support of many municipalities is needed, and this can be realized through the presidents of associations. Despite the difficult circumstances, APLA and ULAI delegations did meet on various occasions. The involved parties were convinced that, at the local level, modest but real contributions to peace could be made. This sustained local willingness to engage in dialogue resulted in meetings and declarations and created momentum at a local level while it convinced the international partners that their preconditions for involvement, namely local commitment, were fulfilled.
Organizing MAP’s 2005 founding conference was a true exercise in diplomacy. All the identified agencies and organizations that might attend were visited by VNG, APLA and ULAI jointly in advance. A commitment to participation in the conference and beyond was discussed and made explicit in the conference background document. Political and geographical spread, as well as the sizes of the attending municipalities, were finely tuned. After the establishment of MAP, a greater awareness among international organizations and municipal associations emerged. This resulted in moral support, human resources and financial assistance.
The development and termination of MAP: 2005-2012
In the year the Municipal Alliance for Peace was established by APLA and ULAI the conflict worsened. In 2005, local elections took place, with Hamas gaining power in many municipalities, and in 2006 Hamas won legislative elections. The rise of Hamas influenced MAP in several ways. Firstly, APLA struggled to come to terms with the new reality, and as of late 2007, it still had no new Executive Board. ULAI adopted a more distant stance to the dialogue, preferring to see how matters would develop, and the Government of Israel discouraged its municipalities from talking to Hamas-run municipalities. Secondly, struggles between Fatah and Hamas greatly affected the environment in which projects were organized. It became increasingly difficult to organize MAP activities, especially in Gaza. Thirdly, the situation provided a justification for foreign partners to opt out, claiming they could not participate as long as Hamas was in power due to their own government’s standpoint. Few new MAP partners presented themselves, and some existing ones became less active.
Financing MAP’s activities continued to be a source of concern as well. Funding opportunities became increasingly scarce as funding agencies became worried that money would benefit bodies and people, who were officially excluded on the basis of various lists and government policies. Additionally, the unstable project environment, especially for peace-building activities, made donors reluctant to advance money. A donor conference organized by APLA, ULAI, and VNG by the end of 2005 showed plenty of goodwill but no final commitments to finance. Eventually, funding was obtained from the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs to formally sustain MAP after its establishment. Since late 2005, MAP has received additional financial support from UNDP/PAPP, which has allowed it to allocate funds to Palestinian beneficiaries without legal implications, unlike many other donor organizations. However, MAP has never received massive support from the donor community in order to get the chance to create substantial visibility on the ground to influence conflict dynamics at the national level.
Managerial difficulties occurred too. A secretariat was created in Jerusalem. Its responsibilities and tasks were to support lobbying activities, to assist in the formulation and implementation of project proposals, to co-ordinate and foster mutual learning, and to mobilize resources. Political sensitivities, constant worries over funding and vulnerable personal relationships have hampered its work. The secretariat in Jerusalem was most of the time fully occupied with fine-tuning local activities with APLA and ULAI and did not have time for all other tasks. Both APLA and ULAI failed to assign staff members to deal with MAP affairs. After two years of operation, only a few of its objectives had been realized. Practical commitment was a problem for all the parties involved.
With the conflict intensifying and constituencies splitting, relationships within MAP’s International Board became fraught. Mutual tolerance between APLA and ULAI at the executive level deteriorated. The impact of these managerial difficulties at the local level might have been even more severe than the impact of the conflict and emphasizes that ownership, commitment, and the organizational setup are major factors in determining the effectiveness and efficiency of a peace process as imagined by MAP. A declaration signed by APLA, ULAI and VNG in 2007 does indicate a willingness and desire to eliminate managerial difficulties – by further institutionalizing MAP and incorporating it within a foundation, by installing an international team member in the local Secretariat and by appointing a rapid intervention team of Israeli and Palestinian mayors to deal with urgent on-the-ground issues. Although the extension of the local team with an international expert turned out to be helpful in formulating concrete projects between municipalities, efforts to establish a joint Israeli-Palestinian foundation and an effective intervention team failed.
New institutional weaknesses influenced the commitment to realizing MAP’s objectives in this phase. The significant change within the APLA membership following local elections, the practical obstacles resulting from intra-Palestinian unrest and travel restrictions, and severe tension over a ULAI Congress in Jerusalem weakened the involvement of APLA. It had four different presidents during the period covering MAP’s establishment and development, and two executive directors. This has harmed the continuity of the process. The limited opportunities to meet with the APLA presidency have hindered political decision-making. Since the elections of January 2006, the APLA General Assembly has not convened for a very long period, and a new Board was not elected, avoiding a Hamas-dominated APLA.
Initially, the willingness to engage in real dialogue, seen in the preceding phase, continued into this one. The extensive list of 33 Palestinian and Israeli municipalities participating in the founding conference bears witness to this. APLA, ULAI and VNG reconfirmed their commitment at the political, executive and administrative level to the objectives of MAP in Jerusalem in July 2007 in a declaration signed by the associations. At the local level, sustained municipal willingness remained an important favorable factor in MAP’s development. The fact that local willingness to talk was reconfirmed by APLA and ULAI in 2007 and that Israeli and Palestinian municipalities continued to discuss project opportunities with international partners gave room for a more positive development. Concrete trilateral municipal cooperation projects were developed. Whereas the associations of municipalities and the international organizations were the drivers of the process in the earlier phase, individual municipalities were now more central. The year 2007 saw projects starting to be implemented. Two projects started in the environment field, involving 11 municipalities (four Palestinian, four Israeli, and three Dutch). Politicians, municipal staff and citizens were in regular contact to implement project activities. The formulation of three other projects on water management, sewage, and park development started in late 2007 and early 2008 and was partly implemented afterward.
One special factor in this phase is that municipal peace initiatives in the form of concrete projects draw heavily on the internal organizations and on the competencies of the involved municipalities. In the MAP environment, the diplomatic qualities and technical competencies of local civil servants and local politicians in the projects needed to be high. Other organizations could assist, but in the projects, they cannot substitute for municipalities. It has been stated a couple of times that mayors in Israel and Palestine had to deal with issues of legitimacy and popular support. This is equally true of the foreign municipalities in trilateral cooperation projects. Legitimacy and popular support must be carefully maintained both in the field and at home. We might observe here a certain discrepancy between the ideals of the international staff of associations of municipalities and UN Agencies on the one hand who were inclined to think that mayors and councilors are ‘poised to be the new diplomats of our world’ and that, ultimately, local governments could play crucial roles in peacebuilding in the world and local government representatives on the other hand who felt limited by the expectations of their population.
The conflict dynamics in these years increasingly affected the possibilities for constructive dialogue and cooperation. In the summer of 2007, the Fatah-Hamas conflict led to Hamas taking control of the Gaza Strip, which in practice divided the Palestinian Authority in two. By the end of 2008, after rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli cities by Hamas, an Israeli operation against Hamas began with an intense bombardment of the Gaza Strip, followed by a ground invasion in January 2009. Increasingly MAP was confronted with messages from mayors in Palestine who did not want to be involved in dialogue with Israeli colleagues any longer because of the continued settler policies and oppression by Israel or did not dare to be involved because it would undermine their legitimacy.
We could increasingly observe a culture of fear, more risk avoidance and a stronger enemy image of Israel amongst Palestinian local government representatives. In the meantime, we also observed increased hostile feelings against Palestinians amongst Israeli local government representatives and a declining belief that local contacts with Palestine would contribute to peace. In my personal contacts. I also felt a certain feeling of hopelessness and a growing number of Palestinians who did not believe any longer in a two-state solution.
After a relatively quiet period in which, under the pressure of the Obama government, some progress in Israeli-Palestinian relations seemed possible, continued rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip led to Operation Pillar of Defense by Israel in the Gaza Strip in November 2012 in which many Palestinians were killed. In combination with a lack of progress in many other fields of disputes between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the willingness to participate in contacts with Israeli partners declined. It was increasingly felt that the time for peace dialogues and concrete cooperation ‘from below’ was over, and MAP died more or less a silent death. A last initiative to bring the main Israeli and Palestinian partners together in The Netherlands failed because APLA informed VNG that they could not account any longer for forma land informal meetings with ULAI. With finances from the Dutch government, VNG could only continue several projects for municipalities on the West Bank.
Reflections on lessons learned from this attempt by the world of local governments to contribute to peace.
• A process such as MAP requires a more conducive environment that offers a realistic perspective on positive change through dialogue and cooperation. The influence of a single municipality is limited, especially in complex conflict regions such as the Middle East. Initiatives from the local government side can work when parties at the national level are stalemated, but only if national governments leave room for it: politically, practically, and legally. Ideally, there should already be a rapprochement.
• This type of process from below by local governments is very dependent on donor funding. Cumbersome bureaucratic procedures, donor preconditions and political preferences have resulted in missed opportunities and slowed down the dialogue process.
• The capacity of the main local stakeholders is important, and the qualities of individual local politicians and civil servants matter. Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that foreign municipalities automatically have sufficient capacity and quality.
• The MAP case presents a dilemma of legitimacy versus efficiency and effectiveness in municipal peace initiatives. While having many international actors and peace initiatives under one umbrella creates legitimacy, streamlining efforts, or at least coordinating between different initiatives, which is necessary to retain efficiency and prevent the available capacity of local stakeholders from becoming exhausted, was often extremely difficult.
• Trilateral technical cooperation can be a very useful basis for dialogue. Third parties can provide technical and financial assistance, a neutral zone for meetings, and access to their network. On the downside, however, trilateral cooperation may make project development more complex than in a bilateral situation and is also more difficult to organize than dialogue.
• True commitment and ownership by local stakeholders—municipalities and their associations—require the support of mayors, councils, citizens, and civil society, but also concrete, visible results. Tangible outputs can be the cement in cooperation exercises.
• A process like MAP needs extreme patience, constant nurturing (politically and often financially) and regular face-to-face contacts, which initially were more effective when they took place outside the conflict region.
• Conflict resolution, development aid, and community development are not mutually exclusive; they can go hand in hand and reinforce each other.
• To explore the added value of local government involvement in peace-building and conflict resolution, national, international, and supranational governments should acknowledge such a role and operate accordingly.
In today’s world, conflicts persist even 80 years post-World War II. The recent suggestion of tactical nuclear weapon use by Russian President Vladimir Putin highlights the growing threat of nuclear warfare, underscoring the urgent need to preserve the narratives of aging hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors). This article delves into the societal impacts of hibakusha stories, recounting the experiences of a survivor and their testimonial activism. It examines how these narratives influence grassroots movements. In the latter part, it questions the dominant notion of peace and the cultural influences on it. Hypothesizing that prevailing peace paradigms reflect specific cultural values, it calls for a more culturally inclusive approach to peace studies. This article serves as a starting point for studying diverse cultural manifestations of peace.
*” Hibakusha” refers to survivors of either the atomic bombing at Hiroshima or Nagasaki in 1945.
KEYWORDS: Hibakusha, Nuclear Weapons, Story Telling, Positive Peace, Cultural Worldview
ーーーーーーーーーーー
INTRODUCTION:
It has been approximately 80 years since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite numerous efforts towards nuclear disarmament and abolition since then, as of early 2022, it is estimated that nine countries, including the United States and Russia, possess a total of 12,705 nuclear weapons (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2022). The belief in the nuclear deterrence theory remains strong in maintaining peace. The U.S. Department of Defense stated that the country’s highest nuclear policy and strategy priority is to deter potential adversaries from nuclear attacks of any scale (2018). The Escalating tensions among nuclear-armed states, along with the proliferation and modernization of nuclear arsenals, and the increased risk of accidental nuclear use, contribute to a growing threat.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists which symbolizes the proximity of humanity to catastrophic destruction through its Doomsday Clock, set the clock hand to its closest to midnight (90 seconds) in 2023, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The journal maintained the same setting in the following year and stated that ominous trends continue to point the world toward global catastrophe.
In the first half (Part 1) of the article, the focus is on the impact of hibakusha stories on society. Japan stands as the sole nation to have experienced atomic bombings in wartime. Therefore, it is essential to pass down the experiences of aging hibakusha. The narrative begins with the author’s mother, Toshiko Tanaka, a hibakusha who survived the bombing of Hiroshima. It details her experiences of the bombing and testimonial activities since 2007.
In the latter half (Part 2), a hypothesis is posited that today’s peace studies are influenced by certain cultural perspectives. As evidence, Johan Galtung’s Positive Peace (PP) and the Positive Peace Index (PPI) developed by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) are explored. Analyzing the top rankings of PPI using Hofstede’s 6-Dimension Model and Wurstein’s 7 Worldviews, it is noted that PPI rankings notably skew towards cultures characterized by individualism and low power distance. Considering the reality of cultures predominantly exhibiting collectivism and high power distance, the call is made to acknowledge diverse concepts of peace.
The article aims to document the power and contribution of hibakusha’s stories and to analyze the cultural perspective of today’s peace studies.
ーーーーーーーーーーー
Part 1: The Power of Hibakusha Stories-Toshiko’s Story
Graphics1: A graduation photo of Mutoku Kindergarten, Hiroshima, taken in March 1945 (Provided by Toshiko Tanaka)
Tragedy of Mutoku Kindergarten
This is a graduation photo from Mutoku Kindergarten in Hiroshima City, where the author’s mother, Toshiko Tanaka, attended. It was taken in March 1945. (Toshiko is the fifth child from the right in the fourth row, marked with a yellow note). The kindergarten was located at the site where the present-day Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum stands (Nakajima-cho, Naka Ward, Hiroshima). Five months after this photo was taken, Hiroshima was devastated by the dropping of an atomic bomb, resulting in the loss of countless lives.
At the time of the photo, Toshiko’s family lived in Kako-machi, Hiroshima City, about 1 kilometer from the hypocenter. However, due to the demolition of neighboring buildings by the authorities, the family was ordered to evacuate, and they moved to Ushita town in the present-day Higashi Ward (2.3 kilometers from the hypocenter) just one week before the atomic bomb was dropped. Consequently, although the family suffered extensive damage, they all survived. However, it is presumed that the survival of the children other than Toshiko, who would have likely attended nearby local elementary schools after graduating from Mutoku Kindergarten was bleak. The city of Hiroshima estimates that at 1.2 kilometers from the hypocenter, nearly 50% perished within the day. In areas closer to the hypocenter, an estimated 80-100% lost their lives. Tomonaga (2019) states a total of approximately 140,000 people in Hiroshima died instantaneously or within five months due to the atomic bombs, and the damage to the survivors’ health has continued to this day.
Memories of the Day of the Atomic Bombing
On the morning of August 6, 1945, at 8:15 AM, six-year-old Toshiko, a first grader, was waiting under a cherry blossom tree with her friends to go to school. It was a hot summer morning with a clear blue sky spread out above. As someone shouted, “Enemy plane!” and looked up at the sky, everything in front of Toshiko flashed white, and she couldn’t see anything. Acting quickly, she covered her face with her arms, resulting in burns to her right arm, head, and the back of her left neck. Even after 79 years, Toshiko vividly remembers the intense pain of the burns and the uncomfortable sensation of sand blown into her mouth by the blast.
That night, Toshiko developed a high fever and lost consciousness, but she recalls some memories from that day. Sometime after the atomic bomb was dropped, Toshiko witnessed a group of people moving silently like “ghosts” in front of her house. They were severely burned and had made their way from the epicenter to the outskirts seeking help. Many of them had burns so severe that they no longer looked human, with skin hanging from their fingertips as they reached out their arms. There were no longer any voices asking for help. Toshiko recalls the sight of them silently dying along the way was like a scene from hell.
Toshiko’s family tried their best to shelter the people fleeing from the epicenter in their partially destroyed home. Among them, Toshiko cannot forget about the two girls who were sisters. The 15-year-old elder sister arrived carrying her two-year-old sister, who had suffered severe burns. It is presumed that the elder sister took on a parental role after their parents perished in the atomic bombing. The elder sister appeared unharmed without any burns. However, it was later learned that the burned sister survived while the apparently unscathed elder sister had passed away. It is believed that she may have received a lethal dose of radiation. But at that time, people found this puzzling as they were unaware of the radiation effects caused by the atomic bomb.
Memories of Odors
When Toshiko miraculously regained consciousness several days later, the first thing she noticed was the intensely unpleasant “odor” reminiscent of burning rotten fish. She quickly realized it was the smell of bodies being cremated in parks and schoolyards throughout the town. Many hospitals and medical personnel were also affected by the atomic bombing, and survival depended on luck and resilience.
Damage from Radiation
From around the age of 12, Toshiko began to suffer from abnormal fatigue and swelling in her body, which led to a diagnosis of abnormal white blood cell levels. Radiation from the atomic bomb not only caused acute effects immediately after exposure but also continues to be a cause of long-term illnesses such as leukemia, other forms of cancer, and psychological damage, resulting in many people suffering even to this day (Tomonaga, 2019).
The story of “Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes” is based on the true story of Sadako Sasaki, who was exposed to the atomic bomb at the age of two and developed leukemia ten years later (see UNESCO Digital Library,1986). Despite suffering from symptoms, Sadako continued to fold paper cranes, believing in the Japanese tradition that folding a thousand cranes would grant her wish for recovery. However, her wish remained unfulfilled, and after eight months of battling the illness, she passed away at the age of 12. This story symbolizes the many individuals, like Sadako, who suffered from the aftermath of the bombings. It serves as a poignant reminder of the significant impact on civilians, particularly women and children.
Discrimination Against Hibakusha
Despite the economic development achieved in post-war Japan, discrimination against hibakusha was deeply ingrained in society. Toshiko recalls that in those days being a survivor of the atomic bomb was considered a “shame” that should not be openly discussed, leading many people to fear discrimination and maintain silence. Particularly due to concerns about the genetic effects on future children, women were avoided as marriage partners. Toshiko remembers a friend from high school who had a fiancé but whose severe keloid scars from the atomic bomb on her back led his family to oppose the marriage. The woman suffered a mental breakdown and remained single for the rest of her life.
Toshiko, blessed with two children (the author and younger brother) after marriage, had assumed her husband wouldn’t mind marrying a survivor like herself. However, when the author was born, her husband rushed to the hospital and anxiously counted the newborn’s fingers and toes. Only after confirming that the newborn was healthy did he express gratitude to his wife with a relieved expression. It was at that moment that Toshiko realized her husband had deeply feared the effects of radiation on their children. This story instilled in the author a sense of duty as a second-generation survivor to convey the threat of nuclear weapons to future generations.
The Wishes Embedded in Art
Until Toshiko turned 70, she never openly declared herself a hibakusha or engaged in testimonial activities. However, during her 45 years as an enamel mural artist, she had secretly incorporated symbols of peace, such as doves and the Atomic Bomb Dome, into her artworks. She explained, “I didn’t include these symbols to show to anyone else. I wanted to heal the trauma deep within myself by doing so.”
Toshiko’s works have been selected and awarded at exhibitions both domestically and internationally, establishing her as a renowned artist. In 1981, her artwork was presented to the late Pope John Paul II during his first visit to Hiroshima, representing the city’s commitment to peace.
Graphics 2:
Enamel mural work titled “Tree of Hiroshima” (180x90cm 1998) and Toshiko Tanaka: Approximately two months after the atomic bombing, a young Toshiko witnessed the bleached bones of a horse and a human side by side on the roadside, along with a small flower growing nearby. This scene serves as the motif for the artwork: the remains symbolize death and the flower the resilience of life emerging from death. Newspapers in those days claimed that no grass or trees would grow in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for 70 years. In reality, new shoots began to sprout from the scorched earth within a few months.
Testimonial Activities from Age 70
In 2008, at the age of 70, Toshiko embarked on a journey with Peace Boat, an international NGO based in Japan. At that time, she still felt uncertain about speaking out as a hibakusha. However, during a visit to Venezuela in South America, she was approached by a mayor who said, “Hibakusha have a duty to convey to people what happened due to the atomic bomb. If you don’t tell them, who will?” This prompted Toshiko to start actively engaging in testimonial activities both domestically and internationally. Over 15 years until the end of 2023, she circumnavigated the globe four times and conducted testimonial activities in approximately 80 countries. Her audience ranged from the general public, politicians, and international organizations to educational and research institutions, both domestically and abroad.
Peace Activism Through Art
As an enamel mural artist, Toshiko has participated in numerous projects related to peace education and advocacy through art. One example is the Garden for Peace project by NAJGA(North American Japanese Garden Association). Upon the request of the late Martin McKellar from the Harn Museum of Art at the University of Florida, Toshiko designed the “Peace Ring” pattern, which has been depicted as sand patterns in Zen gardens across the United States every September since 2020, in conjunction with the International Day of Peace. This project, aimed at seeking peace, has shown a quiet expansion, and according to NAJGA’s official website, as of 2023, 27 gardens have participated in the project.
The Power of Stories
Toshiko’s support strongly impresses upon the author the “power of stories.” While Hibakusha shares numerous testimonies domestically and internationally, not everyone initially listens empathetically. Many people, especially in the United States, believe that “the atomic bombings ended the war” and justify the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Moreover, in Asian countries where wartime atrocities by the Japanese military occurred, solely emphasizing the atomic bomb’s damage may not open people’s hearts. However, the personal stories of Hibakusha, who lost their peaceful daily lives, awaken individuals to the shared threat of nuclear weapons, making them unable to remain indifferent. The author has witnessed firsthand how stories transcend historical and cultural differences, move people’s emotions, and bring about behavioral changes.
One project that particularly impresses the author as demonstrating the “power of stories” is their role in adopting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons(TPNW) by the United Nations in 2017.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a coalition of NGOs, launched a global campaign to prohibit nuclear weapons under international law. Through their advocacy efforts, TPNW was adopted by a vote of 122 countries at the United Nations in 2017. Behind this achievement were the stories of survivors who worked alongside ICAN to lobby various governments and international organizations. ICAN was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize that same year. Setsuko Thurlow, who survived the Hiroshima bombing at the age of 13, concluded her Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech as follows:
“When I was a 13-year-old girl, trapped in the smouldering rubble, I kept pushing. I kept moving toward the light. And I survived. Our light now is the ban treaty. To all in this hall and all listening around the world, I repeat those words that I heard called to me in the ruins of Hiroshima: “Don’t give up! Keep pushing! See the light? Crawl towards it.”
The New Perspective Brought by Stories to a Palestinian Youth
As a final example of the power of stories, here is a case where a story brought new perspectives to the listeners.
In 2010, Toshiko was invited by the U.S. NGO Hibakusha Stories to testify at a public high school in the immigrant-rich district of Queens, New York. Among the audience was a young boy who had immigrated from Palestine. According to the teacher, he had endured a difficult childhood in Palestine, with relatives killed by the Israeli army. He had closed himself off to others even after moving to America. After hearing the atomic bomb testimony, he approached Toshiko with a question.
“I don’t understand. You suffered terrible burns and nearly lost your life because of the atomic bomb. All your classmates were killed. How can you forgive such a thing?”
Toshiko quietly responded to the boy. “I, too, once hated America. But hatred only begets more hatred. Retaliation breeds retaliation. One day, I realized that we must break free from this ‘chain of hatred.’ … I want to continue living for the sake of my deceased classmates. As long as I am alive, I want to keep telling the world that they lived, that they existed.”
The boy stared at Toshiko, quietly listening. After this exchange, when asked by Kazuko Minamoto, who served as Toshiko’s interpreter, what he thought, the boy responded as follows. “Before hearing Toshiko’s story, I couldn’t imagine a survivor forgiving America. My mind is still in turmoil and I can’t make sense of it… But I understand that there are perspectives like Toshiko-san’s.”
Several years later, Toshiko received a letter from the boy’s teacher. The letter stated, “as a result of that conversation, the boy underwent profound internal changes that surprised those around him, and he became more accepting of diverse perspectives.” This incident became a glimmer of hope for everyone involved, including the author, that violence, including nuclear weapons, might be reduced worldwide someday. Amidst the harsh realities in Gaza today, all we can do is sincerely hope that this Palestinian youth continues to hold onto “another perspective.”
Thoughts as a Second-Generation Hibakusha
The author’s emotional journey from perplexity to a sense of mission and solidarity, and finally to hope, supporting the activities of Hibakusha since 2008, can be subjectively described as follows:
Initially, the author harbored a sense of perplexity regarding speaking out as a second-generation Hibakusha until recently. It was questioned whether it was presumptuous to speak on behalf of those who directly experienced the bombing or who suffered and died as a result. Many second-generation survivors likely share this perplexity. The author once confided this uncertainty to MT, a second-generation survivor residing in New York who empathized with the same feelings. Even MT, who seemed to take a leading role in activities such as producing a documentary film about Hibakusha, shared the same doubts. This realization was quite surprising for the author.
Amidst the ongoing conflicts in the world and witnessing the unwavering dedication of the older generation advocating for nuclear disarmament until their final moments, the initial confusion of the second-generation survivors eventually transforms into a sense of duty to carry on their parent’s legacy. One second-generation survivor, upon learning about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, recalled his late father, who had shared his experiences through testimonies worldwide, even addressing 5,000 young Ukrainians in Crimea during the 1990s. Feeling that “the seeds of peace sown by my father are trembling,” he embarked on continuing his father’s legacy by engaging in testimonial activities. Stepping forward, second-generation hibakusha realize the presence of people worldwide who share their sentiments, leading to a sense of hope.
Suggestions for Making Hibakusha Testimonies Sustainable
The author would like to discuss the support needed to make A-bomb testimonies sustainable in the future. The average age of Hibakusha in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is now over 85. While the number of Hibakusha is drastically decreasing, the burden of testimony per person is dramatically increasing in proportion to the growing calls for the abolition of nuclear weapons. It is important to regard hibakusha as a “scarce resource for humanity” and to optimize the content of their activities by reducing their physical and mental burden as much as possible while confirming their wishes. Specifically, in addition to operational support (see note below), the digitalization of testimonies, which is already underway, and the promotion of the substitution of testimonies by those who have handed down their stories, the existence of a “manager” to optimize the quantity and content of activities is essential. The author would like to voice that elderly hibakusha tend to overwork themselves psychologically and physically to respond to the passionate requests for testimonies and interviews from all over the world.
Note: The operational support needed includes coordination with the source of the request, preparation of slide presentation materials, translation and interpretation, media relations, IT assistance, travel escort as a caregiver, and supplementary explanation of the actual situation of the atomic bombings. However, as already mentioned, what is more important is the management of the requested projects on behalf of the elderly hibakusha, including “accepting or not accepting” the requests.
Part 2: A Call for Many peaces
Norwegian peace scholar Johan Galtung, who laid the groundwork for peace studies, proposed the concept of “positive peace.” He coined the term “Negative Peace” for the previously common idea that peace is simply the absence of war (direct violence), believing that the opposite of peace is not “war” but “violence” itself. Galtung argued that humanity should strive not only for the Negative Peace of merely overcoming “direct violence” but also for addressing “structural violence” embedded in social structures such as hunger, oppression, and discrimination, as well as “cultural violence” that justifies these forms of violence. He advocated aiming towards a state where these three forms of violence are eliminated, known as “Positive Peace.”The Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) defines Positive Peace as “the attitudes, institutions, and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies” – not merely the absence of violence or its fear.
In measuring the Positive Peace Index (PPI), which targets countries worldwide (163 countries in 2023), the IEP has identified the following eight empirically derived elements:
1. Well-functioning government 2. Sound business environment 3. Low levels of corruption 4. High levels of human capital 5. Free flow of information 6. Good relations with neighboring countries 7. Equitable distribution of resources 8. Acceptance of the rights of others
The top 10 countries in the 2022 PPI rankings were as follows: 1. Sweden 2. Denmark 3. Finland 4. Norway 5. Switzerland 6. Netherlands 7. Canada 8. Australia 9. Germany 10. Ireland
High individualism and low power distance observed in top PPI countries.
The Hofstede 6-Dimensional Model and Seven Worldviews (7WV) by Huib Wursten are utilized as tools for quantifying and visualizing cultures. Wursten combines Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions (Power Distance, Individualism, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Achievement (Masculinity)) to classify countries into seven cultural groups based on worldviews. Each Worldview shares commonalities in organizational structure and approaches to human relations, suggesting the presence of unique implicit worldviews.
Result of the analysis of PPI Top countries (2022)
A high correlation between PPI ranking and individualism/low power distance is observed. All the top 10 countries belong to Western countries characterized by WVs with high individualism and low power distance. 5 of the 10 belong to the “Network” culture, with 3 “Contest” and two “Well-Oiled Machine” cultures.
The top 10 PPI countries (2022) according to 7 Worldviews:
– Network: Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands – Contest: Canada, Australia, Ireland – Well-Oiled Machine: Switzerland*, Germany * Switzerland includes regions classified under the “Solar System” (French-speaking regions)
Expanding the ranking to the top 20 countries, 81% of the countries are classified under WV with individualism, and 67% under low power distance WV.
The Positive Peace Index has a high correlation with GDP per capita (IEP, 2022). This aligns with the following Hofstede’s statements on the correlation between individualism and a nation’s wealth (2010):
“We found that a country’s IDV (Individualism) score can be fairly accurately predicted from two factors…Wealth (GNI per capita at the time of the IBM surveys) explained not less than 71 % of the differences in IDV scores for the original fifty IBM countries.”
Hofstede also mentioned the correlation between individualism and power distance (2010):
“Many countries that score high on the power distance index score low on the individualism index, and vice versa. In other words, the two dimensions tend to be negatively correlated: large-power-distance countries are also likely to be more collectivist, and small-power-distance countries to be more individualist…”
:Positive Peace Report 2022- IEP
Using Hofstede’s Individualism and Power Distance scores, countries are roughly mapped into two groups (Graphics5): Western countries with high individualism and low power distance (egalitarian) which are located in the upper left quadrant, and the world’s majority countries with collectivist values and high power distance (hierarchical) which are located in the lower right quadrant. (The graph includes estimated scores).
Graph 5: generated by Hofsted’s Globe https://exhibition.geerthofstede.com/hofstedes-globe/
The former group of countries, characterized by high individualism and low power distance, leads the modern world in many aspects such as diplomacy, economy, and academia. And that is also where Peace studies and the idea of Positive Peace originated from. However, on a global scale, populations with such characteristics are rather a minority. It suggests that Western universalist concepts based on human rights, democracy, and market economies would be perceived as “foreign” to majority cultures. As Hofstede puts it,
“Respect for human rights as formulated by the United Nations is a luxury that wealthy countries can afford more easily than poor ones…The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other UN covenants were inspired by the value of the dominant powers at the time of their adoption, and these were individualistic.”
This suggests that when discussing peace, there may be insufficient attention paid to the values of the vast majority of the world’s population. For example, it is worth studying peace approaches based on the collectivistic/hierarchical side, such as those of Japan (ranked 12th in 2022 PPI, IDV 46, PDI 54), Singapore (ranked 14th in 2022 PPI, IDV 20, PDI 74), South Korea (ranked 19th in 2022 PPI, IDV 18, PDI 60), and Portugal (ranked 20th in 2022 PPI, IDV 27, PDI 63). Costa Rica abolished its permanent military and ranks 39th in the 2022 PPI ( IDV 15).
A Call for Many Peaces
Taga, in his introductory book to Peace Studies (2020), cited Wolfgang Dietrich, an Austrian peace and political scientist who warned that imposing the idea that “peace is singular” onto those who do not share the view is a form of “intellectual violence.” Dietrich argued that claiming one’s concept of peace as the only one leads to concealing inequalities such as economic disparities in the world. Even if the meaning of peace varies from one community to another, he believed it is not incompatible, and called for a dialogue about the various interpretations of peace.
“It would follow that specific forms of peace and of resistance against the capitalist world system should not be interfered with and that the idea of the one (perpetual) peace in the one world, as it is put down in all key documents of modern world politics, is, at least, sheer intellectual violence vis-a-vis those who cannot share this idea, because it is just this: an idea, put in front of man in order to conceal that not even this one is equal. The world, therefore, needs more than one peace for concrete societies and communities to be able to organise themselves. The peaces do not become mutually compatible the moment everybody understands one another, but when all live in their own peace, that is, treat others like the members of their own kin, and so respect them even if they do not understand them. Let us look for our place and act in accordance with it! Let us talk about the many peaces!” -Wolfgang Dietrich A Call for Many Peaces: Farewell to the One Peace
In the last paragraph of the book (2010), Hofstede emphasized the resonating idea with Dietrich that the only way to human survival is to accept cultural differences and coexist. If not, “any other road is a dead end. ” In the future, insights from cultural research (e.g., Wursten, 2023) will help us understand various concepts of peace and facilitate humanity’s coexistence. CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION
In this article, the first part extensively discussed the story of a hibakusha and the societal transformations brought about by stories. In the latter part, a hypothesis is presented suggesting that mainstream concepts in today’s peace studies may be biased towards a single perspective of peace which is based on individualism and low power distance. Future studies can explore the cultural diversity of notions of peace and approaches toward it.
REFERENCES:
ANT-Hiroshima. (n.d.). Toshiko Tanaka’s biography and activities. Retrieved March 12, 2024, from https://faces-hiroshima.com/en/toshiko-tanaka/
Hibakusha Stories. (n.d.). History of Hibakusha Stories Initiative. Retrieved March 12, 2024, from https://hibakushastories.org/history-of-hibakusha-stories-initiative/
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed.).McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-166418-9.
Institute for Economics & Peace (2022). Positive Peace Report 2022. Retrieved from https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/PPR-2022-web.pdf
Minamoto, K. (2013). Kiseki wa Tsubasa ni Notte. (Miracles ride on the wings). Kodansha. ISBN:978-4-06-218405-2
North American Japanese Garden Association. (n.d.). Gardens For Peace. Retrieved March 12, 2024, from https://najga.org/gardensforpeace/
Pew Research Center. (2015). Americans, Japanese: Mutual Respect 70 Years After the End of WWII. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/04/07/americans-japanese-mutual-respect-70-years-after-the-end-of-wwii/
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2022). Yearbook 2022: World Nuclear Forces. Retrieved March 12, 2024, from https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2022/10
Taga, H. (2020). Heiwagaku Nyumon 1 (Introduction to Peace Studies 1). ISBN 978-4-326-30289-5
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (2024). 2024 Doomsday Clock Announcement: A moment of historic danger: It is still 90 seconds to midnight. Retrieved from https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
The City of Hiroshima. (2022). Overview of Atomic Bomb Damage. Retrieved March 12, 2024, from https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/soshiki/48/9400.html
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). (2024). Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Retrieved March 12, 2024, from https://www.icanw.org/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_bombings
The Nobel Peace Prize. (2017). International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Nobel Lecture. Retrieved March 12, 2024, from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2017/ican/lecture/
Tomonaga, M. (2019). The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A Summary of the Human Consequences, 1945-2018, and Lessons for Homo sapiens to End the Nuclear Weapon Age. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 2(2), 491-517. DOI: 10.1080/25751654.2019.1681226
UNESCO. (1986). The UNESCO Courier: A Thousand Paper Cranes. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000069680 U.S. Department of Defense. (2018). Nuclear Posture Review 2018. Retrieved from https://dod.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0218_npr/
Wursten, H. (2019). The 7 Mental Images of National Culture. Hofstede Insights. ISBN 9781687633347
From: If you want to build bridges, you have to know where the shorelines are,
Frans de Waal looked at the nature of the role of biological sex and the nature of gender in humans by looking at the behavior of non-human primates. He observed that in the other primates, too, you can speak of gender because they learn certain aspects of their sexualities from each other. For example, the young males watch the adult males and the young females watch the adult females and follow their example. There is also a cultural transmission of how you behave as a male and female. In that sense, gender is a concept that can also be applied to other species. There is evidence that there is biased learning going on. For example, research on orangutans in the forest showed that young females eat exactly the same foods as their Mothers. But young males vary. They sometimes eat foods that the mother never touches. That’s because their models are the adult males they see eating occasionally.
De Waal makes a few points: “There is as much gender diversity in other primates as in humans. Homosexual behavior is very common in primates. I usually call bonobos “bisexual” because I don’t think they make a big distinction between whether they have sex with a male or female. All the gender diversity that we have in human society, transgender people and homosexual orientation, and so on, we can see in the other primates. The interesting part is that they have no trouble with it. I’ve never noticed that they exclude an individual because of this. The tolerance level is a lot higher than in most human societies. But the variation is very similar.” Sex is mostly binary: 99% of individuals are either male or female and there’s a small slice of individuals in between. There are universal sex differences, which we see in all human and primate societies. It’s very hard to argue with some biological background. For example, all young males and primates (including human boys) like to wrestle when they’re young; they like mock fighting, running around, and trying to wrestle each other down. In the young primates, this is a very big bias; the males like to do that and the females don’t like to do that, necessarily. That’s why females often play separately from males. Another thing that’s universal in play behavior is that young females are more interested in infants and dolls in primate and human societies. If you give a doll to a group of chimps, a female will alwayspick it up and care for it. If a male picks it up, he may take it apart and look inside the doll to see what’s in there. But the females will put it on their belly and back, walk around, and care for it. They do the same thing with the infants of other females. The interest of young females in infancy is also a universal human bias, primate bias, and it’s fairly logical because later in life, they will care for offspring for most of their life. Biology or culture? People want to choose between biology and culture. And that’s why you get these discussions with people who say gender is all cultural. There is nothing that is all cultural. That doesn’t exist. Because what is culture? Culture is us influencing each other and we are biological organisms, biological organisms affecting other biological organisms—automatically, biology is in there. There is no pure culture. It doesn’t exist. There is no pure biology either. That doesn’t exist. And that’s why, in biology, we don’t speak about instincts anymore in animals, because everything an animal does is influenced by how it grew up and what it learned in its lifetime, and so on. And so there is no pure biology either. So people want to choose between the two. And they have a false sense of security that they can do that, but you cannot. And so everything we do is influenced by two factors, the environment and our genes, and by the interaction between the two. Masculinity and Femininity is a cultural construct. De Waal: “I usually divide it not by male and female but by masculine and feminine and everything in between. It’s an extremely variable concept. And as I said, it’s probably applicable to other primates, though maybe less well than in humans. But in humans, it is very important to distinguish those two. Gender has to do with how you express your sexuality, your sex role, and how much you follow or don’t follow the dictates of your culture.” But there is a flexibility that can also be seen in the other primates. De Waal givers following example, “chimpanzees and bonobo males, they don’t do anything with the young. The females do everything. The males may occasionally protect them, but that’s all they do. But we know that if a mother loses her life in the forest, and suddenly there is an orphan, we know that sometimes males pick up these orphans and carry them. They adopt them and not just for a couple of days. High-ranking males, like alpha males, may adopt a baby chimp and take care of it for five years. It’s not always expressed, but they have that tendency and that capacity.”
Subconscious learning and biases. Hofstede talks about subconscious learning. De Waal explains it by biased learning: it is aroused more by familiar and similar individuals. In humans, that means individuals of your culture, language, color, etc. We do empathy studies on all sorts of animals nowadays and they always have this social bias built in, which means it’s hard to generate empathy for individuals who are quite different from you, who are distant, who are a different ethnic group, or speak a different language. Then it becomes more difficult for you. But the fact that we have it is really important. And once you have empathy, the capacity for it, you can try to expand it mentally, to expand the rules for in our human moral systems. That’s a cognitive capacity that we have and that’s why we try to do things like that.
The intense warfare between Russia and Ukraine has continued relentlessly now for two years — people are dying every day. Continuation of the military actions in any form — offensive or positional warfare — will not deliver any positive outcome for Russia, Ukraine or Western countries. Any continuation implies endless and irreparable tragedy. “Ending the conflict “on the battlefield,” as some dream, will not work”, — I penned these words in my article in The Nation Magazine Stop the Killing, published a year ago in February 2023. In the article I called for the immediate conclusion of a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine. This text, which is now a year old, could simply be reprinted. All I would need to do is replace the assumptions and warnings with assertions and a statement of the facts.
Fragments of a building in Yubileiny District in Adviivka destroyed during the fighting // Photograph of Stanislav Krasilnikov (RIA NOVOSTI) 22 February 2024
Over the past year virtually nothing has changed on the front line. To return to the borders of 1991, Ukraine would have to regain control of more than 120,000 square kilometres of land. In one year the Ukrainian army recovered 0.3% of these territories. During this time, however, according to some data, it lost over 740 square kilometres. In November 2023 Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who was at the time Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, declared that the war had reached a stalemate — in other words, he admitted what had been obvious to military experts a year earlier. To gain an understanding of the scale of the destruction, whose inevitability was already clear a year ago, you just need to look at images from Bakhmut, Avdiivka and Ugledar. We are not talking here about the destruction of infrastructure: we are talking about cities which have simply been obliterated.
All the global press constantly writes that the Ukrainian army is in dire need of shells and ammunition owing to the failure of the West to provide the aid that it had promised and that NATO countries will now have to ramp up not only production at their defence industries, but also invest in the development and scaling of ultramodern technologies capable of countering new powerful rockets and drones. Nobody knows how long this will take and what it will actually achieve.
After two years of bloody battles, people in Ukraine are increasingly tired and irritated: the current and planned mobilisation processes are accentuating the problems.
Over the past few months the most divergent views are being articulated more and more frequently and loudly in the West, advocating a review of the volumes of military and economic assistance to Ukraine. Western politicians are taking heed of their voters who are not ready to sacrifice their own living standards at a time of a deteriorating economic situation in their own countries for the sake of restoring justice in some local war somewhere in Eastern Europe. And this is precisely how the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is being perceived from a geopolitical perspective after the horrific act of terrorism perpetrated against Israel in October last year and the subsequent exacerbation of the situation throughout the Middle East. The US Congress has been unable to approve an aid package for Ukraine for over two months. The European Union is also being torn asunder by internal differences over the issue of financial support for Ukraine. On 1 February after a summit of the 27 national leaders of the European Union, they finally approved a EUR 50 billion package of support for Ukraine (EUR 33 billion in loans – EUR 17 billion – grants for the period to 2027). In other words, most of this aid is debt.
The Economist notes: “Amid the self-congratulation and soaring press-conference guff about standing shoulder-to-shoulder with an embattled neighbour, it will be considered impolite to note the package is to be spread out over four years and amounts to around 0.08% of the GDP of the union in that period.” Meanwhile, Ukraine as an agrarian country has triggered the dissatisfaction of European farmers in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and even in France and Germany owing to the cheapness of the products that it has been exporting. This is a serious development, presaging new obstacles and difficulties for the country’s accession to the European Union.
Given that the issue of Ukraine’s accession to NATO is not even being considered seriously at present, the prospects of membership of the European Union is mission critical for Ukraine. However, even these prospects are slipping away. This is the direct result of political myopia — the key moment for a ceasefire was missed a year ago.
The current situation does not bode well going forward for the parties to the confrontation. In 2024 the processes of destruction and degradation will proceed far more rapidly and on a far bigger scale than in the past, outstripping any attempts to restore anything. The negative trends will intensify both in Russia (however, this is a separate topic) and Ukraine. Furthermore the Ukrainian economy is already suffering a critical shortage of virtually everything — the budget has contracted, revenues have declined abruptly, while the domestic tax base is shrinking. Moreover, the risks of environmental and manmade disasters have risen acutely against the backdrop of the hostilities. Many people have already forgotten the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam. Moreover, to date nobody has sought to assess the scale of the consequences of this disaster. Vast territories in the Kherson, Zaporizhhia, Mykolaiv and Kirovohrad Regions are at risk. Against the backdrop of climate change and an anticipated drought, these vast areas will be transformed into semi-desert. Thousands of inhabitants living in irrigation-based settlements and cities will end up literally without water. In two-three years these territories could in actual fact become inhabitable. The issue here does not only concern demining and irrigation: we are talking about the sustainability of these districts in principle. Meanwhile the number of districts adversely affected by environmental and man-made disasters will only increase, the longer the war continues.
It is obvious that significant territories in Ukraine will become uninhabitable. In addition millions of Ukrainians have left and continue to leave the country, while millions who remain in the country are waiting for the termination of the military hostilities. However, Ukraine’s leadership insists that 2024 should be a year of continuing war, with an intensification of the warfare – both on land and in the air. This is the reason why the Ukrainian authorities made changes to their military command. Now they only talk about supplies of weapons, drones and implacable mobilisation. Consequently, the armed bloodletting confrontation between Ukraine and Russia will continue for many more years to come and will be transformed into a war of attrition.
At the same time, it looks as if nobody in the West is ready for such a development scenario. Such unpreparedness is clearly demonstrated by the lack of any practical results at the Munich Security Conference held last week. A sombre atmosphere predominated at the largest international political forum, a mood of profound pessimism prevailed over prospects going forward. The majority of people present were sceptical about Ukraine’s chances in its confrontation with Russia. The “security guarantees” that Zelensky received on those days in France and Germany do not imply anything new: to all intents and purposes, the bilateral security agreements merely confirm that Ukraine’s accession to the EU is being delayed materially: Germany and France have promised remote aid (without any direct involvement) if the military conflict with Russia continues or is resumed over ten years.
And this is all makes sense: 2024 is a year of elections globally, which not only portend the re-election of Donald Trump in the USA, but are also fraught with the invigoration of the right-wing forces in Europe: elections to the next European Parliament could lead Europe to lurch to the right. It is anticipated that Eurosceptics and right-wing parties will win the elections in nine EU countries, while they will rank in the top three parties in another nine countries. So it looks as if the West in the best-case scenario will have enough on its plate without the “regional conflict” in Ukraine.
In February 2023 I felt compelled to publish my call for a ceasefire owing to a keen understanding that the window of opportunity would soon close. In the end, this is how things have turned out. This opportunity was squandered. However, in politics, an ability to seize the day is always important. Here the key issue is not only that it will be far harder to achieve a ceasefire now than was the case a year ago. The key issue here is also the price paid for one more year of continuing military hostilities: the dead, wounded and the wrecked families. Moreover, the future of Ukraine as a European sovereign modern country is becoming more and more precarious, if not lost entirely.
All those people who opposed a ceasefire back in February 2023 have led Ukraine to the brink of disaster in February 2024.
And what happens now? Now it is important that Putin is talking about his readiness for negotiations — it is irrelevant that a disgraced American journalist was invited to the Kremlin for this purpose. Such is Russian diplomacy today. There is nothing else. And if neither Ukraine nor the West can discern the opportunity for dialogue of some kind, then we face even more problems going forward. It is true that nobody can guarantee that it will prove possible to organise dialogue or that it will lead to a positive outcome. However, this is where work must be done, this is where diplomacy comes to the fore and where the price to be paid if we refuse to engage in such efforts is too high.
However, as soon as there is any mention of negotiations and a minimal chance of ceasefire appears — as was the case in November-December last year — in response we immediately witness an intensification of the shelling and major assaults, including attacks on the civilian population, in other words, everything is done to rule out even the thought that negotiations might be possible. At the same time, ceasefire negotiations are first and foremost in Ukraine’s national interests. Continuation of the hostilities is a path to degradation, destruction, unmitigable and irreparable losses.
All the talks about some “peace conference” where “the great of this earth” will gather to issue an ultimatum to Russia to surrender and sign a peace treaty against the backdrop of Ukraine’s military success — this is not even an illusion — this is tantamount to fraud. Nothing of the like will happen or could happen.
One cannot rule out the possibility that there is some secret plan to drag out the hostilities in 2024 in order to prepare the ground for the involvement of some third party in the war (this might be the USA or NATO). However, this would lead us on the trajectory to nuclear escalation, up to and including direct confrontation between nuclear powers: as NATO’s army enjoys an advantage in virtually all parameters other than nuclear weapons, Russia’s leadership does not even dissemble Russia’s intention to deploy nuclear weapons in the event of a direct military confrontation with NATO countries.
Strategic state goals and military potential should not diverge categorically. A policy based on calculations and hopes for a continuation of the war, with reliance on some limitless aid “as much as is required”) is utterly unrealistic. It is highly likely that such a policy would result in the loss of Ukraine’s statehood, independence and any kind of future.
A ceasefire agreement is the key objective and the number one priority. This would be followed by a transitional period. This initiative must be supported at the highest level — at the UN Security Council with the consent of all five permanent members. As well as Russia and Ukraine, the USA and the European Union could sign the ceasefire agreement. It would be possible to discuss guarantees from Russia in exchange for an end to NATO expansion for the next 25 years.
Ultimately, today’s global political crisis is attributable to the underlying role played by pragmatism in politics today, rather than value-based principles. Global politics blinded by populism online and steeped in demagoguery and an outright rejection of fundamental values, will simply stumble on from one dead end to another, repeating all the same mistakes. A political strategy in the 21st century must be based solely on universal values – the preservation of human life and dignity in the broadest sense of the word and the retention of a historical perspective.
* * *
In February 2024 all the risks described in the article Stop the Killing that I penned a year ago remain. Some of them have already materialised. However, it is still not too late to stop. As was the case a year ago, the same words can be repeated today:
«The continuation of hostilities in any form—offensive or “positional”—does not bode well for Russia, Ukraine, or Western countries. To continue means an endless and irreparable tragedy. Ending the conflict “on the battlefield,” as some dream, will not work. Putin’s state will stop at nothing. Russia will not become powerless as a result of this war. It will remain one of the two largest nuclear powers in the world.
But there is a possibility of depriving Ukraine, considered by many experts to have become a major state in Central Europe, of its prospects by questioning its ability to restore its economy after the hostilities. It must not come to this.
It is perfectly clear that all this has to stop. Everyone. And only after that should we try to talk. The main thing is that during this time people won’t be killed…
This is the only way to discuss territorial issues, borders, and movement of troops. Then diplomacy will also be needed—tough, difficult, with failures and limitations. We are in a situation where we are left with either bad options or even worse ones. The good options are gone now.”
By Tatyana Fertelmeyster, MA, LCPC, Connecting Differences LLC, and Thorunn Bjarnadottir, MA, Dancing with Differences LLC
Abstract: This exploration of the interplay between being a mother and living in cultural in-betweenness is based on our conversations with 22 diverse women united by the experience of parenting their children away from their cultures of origin. We add our own lived experiences to the mix as well. Acknowledging how complex of a process any motherhood is, we focus on dilemmas, judgments, and choices that are uniquely attributed to cultural transitions and adaptations. We employ the Acculturation Strategies Model (Berry, 1992) and concepts of Constructive and Encapsulated Marginality (Bennett, J.M.,1993) to illuminate the complexities of cultural adjustments. We then incorporate the notion of attachment vs. authenticity (Maté, 2022) to explore the psychological dynamics of finding one’s way through cultural liminality.
Keywords: Integration, Parenting, Cultural Transitions, Acculturation Strategies
Introduction
The idea of writing this article came to us a few years ago. We realized that mothering our children away from our very different motherlands has been a part of our conversations for the 25 years we have been friends. Tatyana came to the U.S. as a refugee from the Soviet Union with her 6-year-old daughter, her 2-year-old son, and their father. Thorunn was a graduate student from Iceland when she met her future husband, a graduate student from the Ivory Coast. At the time we met, their son was 15 months old. Very different paths led us to the same point – we were mothers trying to do our best while living between different cultural realities and far away from the cultures that raised us.
We asked ourselves: what makes mothering in conjunction with cultural transitions different and worthy of exploration? After all, being a mother comes with challenges, dilemmas, mistakes, and discoveries, no matter the circumstances.
To ponder this and many other questions, we invited a few women we knew through our intercultural work to join the conversation. The circle grew as we started getting suggestions from our friends and colleagues. They all said: “You really have to talk to so and so.” Their life stories and the lessons learned were fascinating.
The thing we would’ve wanted to do again and again is to continue interviewing and asking more women about their experience of mothering away from their motherlands. We realized that many realities are not in our inquiry. None of the women we interviewed has a child with severe special needs. None of them is in a same-sex relationships. None can be described as lacking education. In other words, there are lots of angles that could’ve taken us in very different directions. And one day, we might take another turn in our exploration.
The 22 women we interviewed can all be described as middle-class, educated, and fluent in at least two languages. Among them were professional interculturalists and those with intercultural lived experience who had no formal training or education in the intercultural field.
Some moved from one country to another as adults, others as children or teenagers. Their reasons for moving vary greatly. Some moved for work (their own or their partners’), others were foreign students. Some came as immigrants, refugees, or asylum seekers, while others planned a short visit that turned into a lifetime. We talked to women who became mothers before they changed cultures and women whose children were born in different cultures. A few women became mothers for the first time, already away from their motherlands. Some moved for love, some to get away from bad relationships.
We talked to women who grew up as Third Culture Kids, moving with their parents from one culture to another, and to women who were mothering TCKs not only away from the motherland but also changing their home base multiple times. We interviewed women who, as children, were left behind and had to wait for their parents to bring them into a new country a few years later.
There were various cultural realities between mothers and fathers. Some shared the same cultural background (going through the cultural transition as a couple or becoming a couple at a later point). Others came from different cultures (living in his, her, or a culture that was neither his nor hers). Several women are mothers of bi-racial children, which would have been very unlikely had they stayed in their home country.
Some women were married to the fathers of their children, others were in their second marriages, and some were single mothers. Children’s ages at the moment of interviewing spread from 7 to 45, and there were many grandchildren to chat about.
We’ll share only a few specific details in this article to protect women’s privacy and respect their openness and vulnerability. Depending on their preference, some are acknowledged by their first names (real or chosen by them), while others by initials. The tendencies we identify and conclusions we offer are based on the rich tapestry of our (all of us) collective experience of mothering away from our motherlands.
We are grateful to all of them for letting us in on their stories and lived experiences. We also want to acknowledge that we got a lot of gratitude from the women we talked to. In the words of one of them (and many of them): “Nobody ever asked me about that.”
Defining Culture
In her critically acclaimed book, The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down: A Hmong Child, Her American Doctors, and the Collision of Two Cultures, Anne Fadiman shares the story of a doctor who was the doctor of choice for women of the Hmong refugee community resettling in California. He respected the Hmong tradition that requires the placenta to be buried under the tree next to one’s house, giving a very different meaning to and connection with the place of birth. This doctor would give women their placenta to take home. All other doctors saw it as ridiculous and against all kinds of rules and regulations.
Giving birth is a universal experience. And yet, Universal vs. Cultural vs. Individual tensions start right there. Mothering cannot be fully understood and appreciated without consideration of the cultural complexities involved in pregnancy, prenatal care, childbirth practices, and all the steps and realities of motherhood that follow.
There are many different ways to define culture. The anthropological perspective emphasizes shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviors, and artifacts that characterize a group of people. It encompasses the way individuals within a society perceive and interpret their surroundings, shaping their social interactions and daily practices. The sociological approach focuses more on patterns of interactions, societal norms, and ways to maintain social order. Cultural studies emphasize how power dynamics, identity, and social structures are embedded in cultural expressions.
Psychology looks at culture as the learned and shared patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving transmitted from generation to generation. It focuses on cognitive frameworks, emotional responses, and behavioral scripts that individuals acquire through socialization within a specific community or group.
Our working definition of culture is intentionally simple: culture is “this is how we do things around here.” How do we do things when our “around here” changes? How do we transmit our learned and shared cultural patterns from one generation to the next when we come to new places whose patterns we don’t know?
Cultural In-betweenness
How does motherhood operate in cultural in-betweenness? How do we ensure our children have a sense of home, security, and belonging while navigating multiple cultural identities? What price – in our relationships, belonging, and sense of identity – do we pay for mothering away from our motherland?
According to Dr. John Berry, how we acculturate depends on the environment we find ourselves in and our approach to change. The Acculturation Strategies Model (Berry, 1992) outlines individual adaptation strategies across two dimensions, which are expressed in the following questions:
“Is it considered to be of value to maintain one’s identity and characteristics?”
“Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with the larger society?”
The first dimension revolves around preserving or abandoning one’s native culture, considering the degree of maintaining one’s identity and characteristics. The second dimension pertains to embracing or rejecting the host culture, considering the importance of establishing ties with the broader society.
Berry identifies four strategies that emerge depending on how these two questions are answered. Those willing to shed their own culture and merge with the host culture choose Assimilation. The opposite choice of holding on to one’s own cultural ways while minimizing or avoiding interactions with other cultures means a preference for Separation. The most problematic strategy is Marginalization. It is defined by the inability to maintain a sense of connection to one’s cultural identity and little interest in engaging with the new one. Integration is the strategy that supports the most successful adaptation to a new culture. That strategy combines one’s interest in staying connected to one’s cultural roots while being interested and willing to engage with the new cultural environment.
Tatyana recalls a conversation with a young woman from Somalia. “In my culture, men are not supposed to put their foot in the kitchen,” she said. “When I have a son, I will put both of his feet in the kitchen!” Tatyana remembers thinking: “I wonder what your mother-in-law will think about that?”
Some of our interviewees faced these choices for the first time as adults, while others lived through cultural transitions as children, thus being impacted by their parents’ acculturation strategies and by their own experiences. At the time we interviewed them, mothers in our small sample could definitely be described as being in integration. Their stories of getting there give multiple examples of what helps and hinders the process. Their narratives show that having certain privileges (higher education, the ability to speak a local language, having a supportive community, and the voluntary nature of their move to a new culture) supports one’s ability to integrate. Some of the stories show that experience of discrimination, uncertainty of immigration status, and absence of their own supportive “village” contributed to their adaptation stress.
It is important to acknowledge that cultural adjustment of family systems brings additional complexity as different family members may have different acculturation strategies. Their genders, generations, professional backgrounds, language proficiency, mental health, and personalities can significantly impact their different ways of navigating cultural adjustments.
In our work with refugees, expatriates, foreign students, and scholars, we’ve observed how differences in acculturation approaches can strain familial relationships.
Dr. Janet Bennett identified two distinct trajectories of living in cultural liminality: constructive marginality and encapsulated marginality (Bennett, 1993). The former is defined as one’s ability to navigate different cultural contexts and feel at home enough in any of them. The latter refers to experiencing profound dissonance and isolation within one’s own and host cultures.
Being a constructive marginal (or, in Berry’s terms, a fully integrated bi-cultural person) requires creating, constructing, and sustaining something that was not there before – the third culture.
Roxanne came to the U.S. from Guyana when she was eight and is a highly educated, professional woman of color, passionate about social justice, women’s rights, and psychological well-being. Reflecting on her marriage to a white U.S.-American man, equally educated and focused on his work, she shared: “I think part of the challenge is that we are raising our children in very different ways from either of our cultures. We are in a very different marriage from either of our cultures. In many ways, we’ve flipped how traditional gendered relationships look. Still, because we don’t have a model for this, everything is up for negotiation.”
Deepika shared that one of her sons, a shy 13-year-old, struggles with being different. While she embraces a mixture of cultures – Indian, South African, Spanish – that make her who she is, she appreciates the importance of respecting his challenges with navigating his complicated identity.
Children, although not initiators of cultural transitions are profoundly impacted by them. Thorunn recalls how her son, about 4 years old at the time, came to her in deep thought: “We are kinda messed up family, aren’t we? You from Iceland, pabbi from Africa, and what am I, an American?” A few days later, out of nowhere, he said, “I’m an African chief, an Icelandic Viking, and an American soldier.” He had figured out his identity.
It Takes a Village
A well-known proverb originating from the Nigerian Igbo culture says: “It takes a village to raise a child!” This concept resonates across diverse African cultures and languages: the Swahili proverb “One hand does not nurse a child,” the Sudanese saying “A child is a child of everyone,” or the Tanzanian expression “One knee does not bring up a child.” What exactly makes that proverbial village can mean different things to different people? As an insider of any culture, one knows what to expect and what to count on. When mothering happens away from the motherland, women must navigate the intersection between their cultural and familial expectations and realities. They often have to create their own new “village.” It came easily for some of our interviewees and with a lot of pain and difficulties for others.
A.M.’s first daughter was born in her motherland, Bulgaria, where it is traditional that grandmothers help a lot with child care. Her twins were born after the family moved to the United States. She recalled: “The twins were about nine months old when my mom could come for the first time, and this gave me some breathing opportunities. Then, when they were around three years old, my mother-in-law came for a few months. So this was all the help I got from my family in the beginning.”
Samra, who moved to the U.S. from Egypt as a child, became a big part of her mother’s support system. There were no maids anymore. Her mother, a prominent doctor invited to work at one of the Texas hospitals, had to adjust her own way of life rapidly. Samra, now a mother of three and a grandmother herself, remembers that time as challenging but rewarding as she and her mom grew closer together through that experience.
Christine, the daughter of a Taiwanese mother and a US-American father, remembers her mother being completely disconnected from her native culture, homesick, and not having her own “village.” The family moved a lot during Christine’s childhood, and as a classic TCK, she had to learn how to feel at home in different new places. That knowledge proved valuable as she married a Dutchman, with whom she has been raising two children, first in the Netherlands and later in Canada.
Thorunn and her husband, who have no extended family in the U.S., had to create one. An old trusted friend with no family of his own became the grandfather; a girlfriend became his aunt; and an African American family they knew practically “adopted” them into their large family, where Thorunn’s son gained numerous cousins. He did not know they were not his “real” cousins until he was in high school. Yet, the bond continues.
When a woman becomes a mother away from her cultural roots, her need to have her partner’s family as a part of her “village” is quite significant. Analyzing cross-cultural relationships with in-laws deserves its own time and place. At this point, we want to emphasize the depth of vulnerability women experience being away from their own people and not being accepted by their partners’ families. The stories we heard ran the gamut from a deep sense of support and belonging to a lack of interest and even rejection.
Mothering as Cultural Transmission
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines tradition as “the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction” or as “cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions.” In every one of our conversations, we heard about the challenging choices mothers had to make being away from their cultural roots and societal/familial structures that support predictable ways of celebrations, rituals, and practices. Sometimes, it was about getting creative about figuring out what could replace a Christmas tree while living in India or how to introduce Thanksgiving to people who never celebrated it and make it meaningful.
And often, it was about standing their ground or letting go of something familiar and important. Women shared stories of pressure they were getting from their in-laws or their own families. They talked about being judged, blamed, and shamed. Their loyalties, motives, and even clarity of their minds were questioned. Many dealt with self-judgment and guilt while deciding whether to keep their cultural practices and traditions, transform them into different versions, or let them go altogether.
F.P. shared that she wanted her U.S.-born children to have what she was homesick for. For her, it was the food and the music from back home, especially people singing in many different languages, which was one of her joyful experiences growing up in Kenya.
Deepika grew up as a part of the Indian diaspora in South Africa. She now lives in Spain with her Catalanian husband and their two children. Being a vegetarian her whole life, she decided that her children could eat meat, even though it was hard for her parents to accept. She also significantly simplified some and completely let go of other celebrations she grew up with. She talked about FaceTiming with her extended family back home during traditional Indian holidays and experiencing emotional void.
Lena talked about the challenges she faced navigating three different cultures. She is from Russia, married to an Indian man, and bringing up their children in the United States. She sees important similarities between Russian and Indian cultures in the importance of family. And she struggles with very different cultural expectations of how her children are expected to relate to their grandparents.
All kinds of traditions and beliefs govern the process of naming children. For women, having their children away from home and mothering between cultures, deciding what to call their kids often comes with all kinds of pressure and relational tensions. Some mothers had to engage in true cross-cultural explorations and negotiations with their partners to find creative solutions.
As the oldest daughter, Thorunn was expected to give her son her father’s first name. Unfortunately, that name would’ve been practically unpronounceable for English speakers. She and her husband went with his late father’s first name but spelled it the Icelandic way.
Masami, originally from Japan, gave her son a traditional Japanese name that came to her in a dream shortly before his birth. F.P. and her husband chose to have their children’s first names be from her culture and religious tradition because, as she explained, “Their last name would be a white American name.”
Some women were intentional about choosing names that would easily work between cultures. Others, whose children were born and named before their cultural transitions, had a different dilemma: keeping or changing their kids’ names as a part of adjusting to a new place and a new language.
In his book “The Silent Language,” Edward T. Hall noted, “Culture hides much more than it reveals, and strangely enough, what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants.”
When Tatyana’s son was around seven years old, she took him to a swimming pool, where he obediently sat waiting for her under a sign stating that an adult must accompany children younger than 12. Watching him, Tatyana grappled with a cross-cultural moment of her own conflicting perspectives. While her son was following the rules dictated by the new culture, Tatyana, accustomed to a culture where the approach to rules was situational rather than universal, questioned the practicality of his behavior. After all, who in the pool would know which adult that child belonged to? And then she made an intentional point of thanking him for waiting.
Similarly, Thorunn experienced a profound realization of her cultural programming when her husband challenged her automatic habit of using sarcasm and humor to toughen up their son. This clash of cultural approaches brought to light the hidden influences of her upbringing, prompting her to reconsider how she engaged with her son.
The Highway Queen, a pseudonym adopted by our interviewee from the Philippines, recounted a time when she decided to take her teenage daughter to the Planned Parenthood clinic to learn about contraception. “I felt guilty and not guilty at the same time. Guilty toward my culture. But I needed to make sure my daughter would be safe.”
What in the World Are You Doing?
Mothers are always judged on whether they are keeping their children safe, teaching them the right things, or whether we bring them up to be well-adjusted and respectful humans. However, when we mother away from our motherland, trying to find our way between dos and don’ts of multiple cultures, it becomes more complicated.
Many narratives in our collection capture moments when women come face-to-face with their own cultures, as their normative practices being judged inappropriate and their ability to parent questioned. Examples included a Japanese tradition of parents and children bathing together, an Icelandic and Russian practice of letting little children nap in their strollers outside in the winter, or a Kenyan celebration that involves shaving a baby’s head. The reactions driven by the lack of cultural knowledge varied from threats of calling the authorities to long-lasting expressions of disgust.
At times, judgments of doing wrong by their children came from insiders of women’s cultures of origin, their families, or friends. Eva, who moved to the U.S. from Slovakia and had three children with her U.S.-born husband of Slovakian descent, was criticized by her mother for choosing to homeschool her children. Taruni, who became an international educator to give her four sons a quality education and richness of experience, was judged by many for taking her children from the safety of Australia to the dangers of India, Tanzania, and Yemen. Dianne and her husband’s decision to move from the U.S. to Mexico to expand their son’s cultural horizons raised many eyebrows.
They Call It Mother Tongue for a Reason
Mothering between cultures most often means mothering between languages. What language do we use? How intentional or subconscious are our choices? What impact does it have on our children growing up surrounded by accents?
Almendra grew up between the U.S. and Spain. She is fully bi-cultural and equally fluent in English and Spanish. She is married to a Spaniard, and they are parenting their two children in Spain. She told us about when her son was born: “When he came out and they placed him on my belly, I spoke to him in English. He was born in Madrid, Spain, and my relationship with my husband was in Spanish. And I went, ‘Whoa, okay, so I’m gonna have a relationship with him in English. And it’s been the case ever since. And it’s been the case with my daughter as well. I speak to them in English, even though they are growing up in Spain.”
Kate, who lived in multiple cultures and has a real talent for learning languages, looked back at the time when her now adult daughter was in kindergarten: “I respected her choice, when her peers were around, to be mothered in the language that she wished for.”
Suzanne, a U.S.-American woman, who lived and worked Israel for a number of years, shared that her children used to say to her: “You and dad must be talking about money right now. You are speaking Turkish.” In their early 20s, Suzanne and her husband were in Peace Corps in Turkey. That’s how they got their secret parental language.
Christine regrets that she never learned Chinese from her mother. “I never had a conversation with my grandmother. I haven’t had conversations with most of my cousins because I don’t speak Chinese,” she shared. “And that wasn’t going to happen to my kids. Period. End of story.” Parenting her children in the Netherlands, she made sure not to respond to them in Dutch, which was tricky as her kids figured out their mother could understand them in Dutch. So why should they put extra effort into speaking English? “It was extremely important to me that they be able to speak English,” said Christine, “mainly because I wanted them to be able to speak to their families. “
One of Tatyana’s favorite memories of her attempts to ensure that her children keep their Russian language goes back 30+ years. At that time, the message at home was, “We don’t speak English. Only speak Russian to us.” One night, she was grocery shopping with her 4-year-old son. Sitting in a shopping cart, he was engaging the world in conversation. In English. “This is my mom,” he said to a nearby woman. “And she is a pain in the a..” The woman said, “WHAT?” He replied, “Don’t worry, she does not understand English.”
Thorunn finds the Icelandic diaspora in the United States to be comparative regarding children’s ability to speak the language. Spending summers with his grandparents helped her son to learn Icelandic and saved Thorunn from being judged by her compatriots.
Besides English, the women in our group spoke Albanian, Arabic, Bulgarian, Dutch, French, German, Gujarati, Hindu, Icelandic, Japanese, Russian, Slovak, Spanish, Swahili, Tagalog, Turkish, and several other languages. Almost all of them acknowledge using English to say “I love you” to their children. As for other emotions and topics, there were various ways of choosing the language.
F.P., who speaks six different languages, prefers to mix them. Her cooking, however, is “always in Swahili.”
Roxanne, a native of Guyana, a former British colony and the only English-speaking country in Latin America talked about years of communication difficulties in her marital and co-parenting relationships. Then, one day, her friend invited her to attend her presentation on cultural differences. “And she brought up high context/low context. And It was like, oh, the clouds opened up. I was like, Yeah, I’m high context. Yeah, my people are high context!”
Before We Were Mothers, We Were Daughters
P.B. was 3 years old when her father left Brazil. Her mother followed him three days later. She reunited with her parents, undocumented immigrants in the U.S. when she was ten. It took a few more years before the family “got documents.” Her mother ran a very Brazilian home. In part because of her own preference and in part because being undocumented supports Separation rather than Integration. Coming from a Brazilian favela to America gave her a feeling that everything was possible. Needing to hide her family’s circumstances contradicted that sense of freedom. Now she is married to a Brazilian man who, experiencing racism and xenophobia, at some point wanted to turn around and go back home. He wants their three children to assimilate as much as possible. She wants them to keep their Brazilian culture and be a part of the broader American culture. From her perspective, the cultural divide that is the hardest for her children to navigate is the socio-economic one.
Julia, also ten at the time her family moved to the States, tells a very different story. Her family was a part of the Jewish refugee wave coming from the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1980s. She did not have any sense of cultural belonging to the country they had to leave because of anti-Semitism. She remembers feeling very different as she entered American school. She had a strong wish to blend in and be like everybody else. Her story is of figuring out her own identity while her parents were figuring out theirs. As an adult, Julia has a rather diverse group of friends. She believes that her parents are more integrated into the American culture compared to her friends’ parents. One can say that integration runs in her family. “The difference between my mom and her friends’ mom was enormous compared to the difference between me and my mom,” she said. “And the difference between my kids and me, I think is even less.”
In our interviews, we encountered a range of maternal relationships, from profoundly nurturing to troubled and dysfunctional. Some women talked about mothers who were frequent travelers or made their own one-way journeys away from their motherlands. Others seldom ventured beyond their homeland except for brief visits to their daughters. Among them were successful career women and those wholly devoted to domestic life.
Several interviewees shared stories of their mothers’ battles with mental illness, which often rendered them emotionally distant and unpredictable. There were narratives of prolonged separations and stories of real closeness. There were examples of very communal upbringing, almost having multiple mothers. There were very strict mothers and the ones with a rather relaxed approach to discipline.
Notably absent were stories about mothers who left no mark.
“We’re born with a need for attachment and a need for authenticity,” writes Hungarian-born Canadian psychiatrist Gabor Maté in his book The Myth of Normal. “Most people abandon their true selves (authenticity) to please others and keep the relationships (attachments), even if they are ones that are toxic and destructive.”
It definitely warrants further investigation to gain insights into how the quality of our early-life attachments, especially the ones we develop in relationships with our mothers, impacts our ability to integrate into new cultures and establish a sense of belonging in new environments. Going back to Dr. John Berry’s acculturation strategies questions “Is it considered to be of value to maintain one’s identity and characteristics?” and “Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with the larger society?”, we can rephrase them as
Is it considered to be of value to maintain attachments?
Is it considered to be of value to maintain one’s authenticity?
While our interviews couldn’t capture the entirety of the women’s early life experiences, it became evident that individuals’ navigation of cultural adjustment and adaptation largely hinges on their internal attachment-autonomy balance. Without exception, the women in our study displayed remarkable autonomy. For some, this autonomy propelled them towards different cultures, while for others, it spurred a journey of self-discovery and self-definition. Furthermore, our discussions underscored how mothering away from their motherland heightened their awareness of their multifaceted identities and the profound role these identities played in their parenting journeys.
We can fully embrace our genuine selves only by experiencing a profound sense of belonging.
The Gift Basket
Mothering from the perspective of integration and constructive marginality is about learning to be at home in cultural in-betweenness and transmitting this new sense of “how we do things around here” to our children. The balancing act of rearranging and reestablishing attachments while leaning into one’s authenticity is complicated and tiring. Day to day, we succeed and fail and then try again.
Talking to women, we asked them to contribute to a “Gift Basket” – to add their thoughts to collective wisdom that can be shared with others mothering away from their motherlands. They talked about the importance of supporting their children’s ability to form and embrace their own identities, bringing them up as responsible global citizens, and instilling a habit of reflective inquiry into their complex experiences of cultural liminality.
Saumya, a mother of two, whom we have not introduced yet, was born in India and grew up between India and Germany following her father’s international work travels. Her husband is from a different part of India. They met in the U.S. Sharing with us her diverse list of interests and passions, she gave us the words that we would never forget: “Motherhood is not the only hood!”
She offered this for the gift basket: “The first is self-care and compassion. Love yourself, be kind, and take care of yourself. And if you made a mistake, you should be able to say “Sorry” and get over it, to forgive yourself and move on. Let’s be honest: you will not be a superwoman; you don’t need to be a superwoman, (from Saumya ).
“Mothers must learn to trust themselves because everything else will change. And they have to learn that when your body and your heart tell you something, you ask, is this right or wrong for my child or my family? You have to trust that, and maybe it’ll play out wrong, but you are the only constant you have. You take from cultures what works for you, your family, and your children’s needs because they will all be different.” (from Christine)
“Be gentle with yourself. I think we tend to beat ourselves up, which doesn’t help anybody. It doesn’t help your kids, that’s for sure. It doesn’t help you” (from Almendra).
“There is a way of being in the world that helps navigate the transitions and the tensions that are inherent in all mothering, so a heavy dose of compassion for yourself and for the little ones you’re raising and if you have a partner in the mix compassion for your partner as well. Embrace the messiness that is the human condition and give yourself space for grace” (from Roxanne).
Reference List
Bennett, J. M. (1993). Cultural marginality: Identity issues in intercultural training. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 109–135). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Berry, J.W. (1992). Acculturation and adaptation in a new society. International Migration, 30, 69-85.
Maté, G., & Maté, D. (2022). The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture. Garden City, NY: Avery Publishing.