Research approach. Many years ago ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1940[1926]) formulated an interesting insight that provides a useful point of departure for addressing the goals of this research and the general and specific research questions. He suggested focusing on “the study of life situations which call for a given rule, the manner in which this is handled by the people concerned, the reaction of the community at large, the consequences of fulfilment and neglect” (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1926: 125). This approach has been taken by many other anthropologists. For instance, in an interesting debate on whether in the study of law, the rules or cases should be the main focus, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1973) endorsed ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ views and concluded that “a study of abstract rules is not enough [and] rules and praxis have all to be handled together” (p. 634). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ rightly added that it is equally important to have knowledge of social life, in its ecological, economic, political aspects. This study follows ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ assertion of the importance of everyday life and practice, and uses an ecological model to analyse reconciliation and healing processes in a community-based setting. The basic principle of this model is the interdependent relationships between individuals and their environment (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1979). Here the environment is composed of supernatural forces as well as various social settings and the geographic landscape. One key aspect of the geographic landscape is that it may give rise to specific economic activities in the community. These economic activities in their turn generate specific types of social relations between people, and these relations may play a role in promoting reconciliation. The ecological model points to the potential of differing physical and social conditions in the various settings in which people establish direct or indirect relationships and access resources for addressing reconciliation and healing. The recognition of these different conditions is extremely important for avoiding the so-called “fallacy of composition”, that is the notion that what is true for the part is also necessarily true for the whole. Since the reality of one setting may not represent the full story, it is necessary to analyse various settings in which individuals and families establish direct or indirect interaction in order to determine where successful or ineffective responses are being generated in the process of reconciliation and healing. Owing to the high degree of war exposure, many relationships in Gorongosa were damaged and various individuals and families were affected in health terms. In spite of this overwhelming destruction, however, social life continues. Yet it is necessary to understand under what conditions social life continues and which processes are activated to repair fractured relationships and heal the wounds of war. One of the principal hypotheses of this thesis has to do with the availability and accessibility of resources and the intrinsic logic of their utilization. The ecological approach suggests that these resources may be depleted in one level (such as the family) but be available on another level (such as the community or the landscape). Since the agents operating on all of these levels are establishing mutual relationships and mutual influences, the resources available in one social setting or those available in the geographic landscape can be used to compensate for the limitation or scarcity of resources on another level. Attempts to universalise the consequences of war violence ignore basic principles of cultural theory, i.e., the nature of culture and its implications for social structure and social life (▇▇▇▇▇, 2001). A deep understanding of these social structures, social life and the agents that give meaning to them is crucial to elicit both individual and collective strategies and processes involved in reconciliation and healing in post-conflict countries. Within this context this study explores strategies and processes located in the interplay of agency and structure. Agents behave and interact to create structures. On its turn, these structures shape the behaviour and actions of the agents. This interplay of agency and structure gives rise to specific social practices. In order to explore these interplays I follow two inter-related views developed by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, namely “perspectivism”
Appears in 2 contracts
Sources: N/A, Not Applicable