2024/09/23 by Carrie Menkel‐Meadow · 1 voice
Neuroscience · Psychology · Social Sciences · #Optimism, Hope, and Well-being #Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment #Social and Intergroup Psychology
paper · doi:10.1111/pops.13032
openalex publication_date 2024/09/23 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/14
Imagine how heartbreaking and poignant it is to publish or read a book about the hope for peace after October 7 and the still (as of this writing) ongoing war in Gaza-Israel. Especially after years of empirical and theory-driven work on the conceptualization of hope in intractable conflicts, as these authors have done (some of the chapters are co-authored with others). But as sad and poignant as it is, this book must be read by any who labors in the fields of political psychology, peace studies, conflict resolution, and intractable disputes. Oded Adomi Leshem, drawing on years of empirical work and interdisciplinary engagement with theory and different operationalization of concepts in our fields, has produced a masterful exploration of an important way to reconceptualize and study hope—as a bidimensional concept consisting of two elements—the wish for peace, separated analytically (and emotionally) from the expectation of peace. This disaggregation of the concept of hope becomes, in Leshem's words, an elegant equation of possible measurement, actualization, and construction of a third idea—optimal hope—taking the full measure of both aspirational and realistic assessments of the prospects for peace. He cautions that this is not necessarily a ratio of equality (not equal parts wishes and expectations which could produce a simple formula of “expected utility” of hope producing measurable impacts on peace activism or achievement), but an equation that may vary with circumstances and contexts—periods of low or high escalation in conflict, increased or decreased positive or negative contact (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998). The book draws on many disciplinary traditions to define hope—political philosophy, sociology, social psychology, peace and conflict studies, literature, political speeches, and individual and collective psychology—to explore not only the assumed positive aspects of hope in peace efforts but also the possible disadvantages or harms of hope (e.g., dashed or lowered expectations, therapeutic passivity, ignorance, arrogance, or “anguish”). Though most of the studies reported here were conducted with the Israel-Palestine conflict of the last 100 years in mind, Leshem and his colleagues have created a HOPE MAP PROJECT that seeks to study other intractable conflicts, currently including Cypress, with plans to extend to India–Pakistan and other locations of seemingly intractable conflict to measure, through surveys, interviews, and experimental studies, how hope is experienced in different contexts by different parties to the conflicts. So, why would we study hope in these troubled and intractable times? Leshem, as a well-trained social scientist with aspirations for peace, wants to know whether having hope, as deconstructed into wishes and expectations, can have some explanatory purchase for consideration of determinants for conflict resolution at both attitudinal and behavioral levels. Do those with closer contact with violence (Palestinians) have greater optimism or pessimism about peace initiatives? Does hope and its constituent parts have different valences in grassroots peace efforts than in more formal diplomatic or leadership-driven peace negotiations? What effect does asymmetrical power have on wishes and expectations for peace? And eventually, with more data collection and mapping of other conflict regions, will it be possible to see comparative differences in hope in different conflict settings? For example, in an important comparison, Leshem compares environmental activists' motivations to peace activists. He suggests that hope for effective social change in environmental activism does not seem to influence collective action, p. 97, but a sense of necessity might. Other forms of activism are motivated by feelings of injustice and anger, where different outcomes might be sought. This raises important questions about whether different kinds of causes might inspire different kinds of hope, as it is disaggregated, both theoretically and empirically. In addition to studying the variability of hope and its particular effects, Leshem also focuses on different conceptions of peace, as described by both political theory and practical conflict resolution ideas—must there be only an absence of violence negative peace (Burton, 1997; Galtung, 1969) or can there be hope for structural, positive, social development and “reciprocal” peace (Leshem at 76; Burton, 1997; Rubenstein, 2017)? How are the different conceptions of peace to be refracted on and understood by those who dream of or work for the cessation of ongoing violence? Leshem creates a classic fourfold table (p. 58), which maps quadrants of high/low wish and expectations for peace variations from which he creates scatter figures for the different groups being studied (Palestinians and Israelis), exposing how different sides of the conflict differ in their wants and assessments of reciprocal peace. From a detailed analysis of survey and interview data of peace activist groups (four NGOs), ordinary citizens, and leadership, Leshem arrives at a very important action-oriented observation—hope for peace must focus on “the other.” For reciprocal peace to be fully recognized, the higher “wish/desire” for peace by those with less power in the situation (e.g., Palestinians) should be recognized by those who have lower expectations (e.g., those with more “power”). In other words, what makes so many conflicts intractable is that parties in conflict continue to process their situation through their own assumed shared experience and perhaps false assumptions about “the Other.” While I do not want to read too much into an explicitly modest claim for further study and elaboration of what deconstruction of hope may offer us, Leshem signals that language, rhetoric (speeches by leaders) from insiders to one's own group may be less effective than listening to appeals by outsiders. By conducting some pilot studies of reactions to insider and outsider speeches, he suggests that attention to the rhetoric of “the other” may effectively tap into more malleable attitudes toward peace and behaviors (e.g., willingness to concede and compromise on negotiated peace terms). At the individual level of action, rhetoric and behavior of leaders might be better oriented to hope, while at the collective level, insider-outsider gaps might be reduced with the now even more difficult efforts of empathy seeking peace groups. How do they keep hope alive? Despite the current major conflict in the Gaza-Israel war, which has likely thwarted much of the grassroots efforts of peace groups, this important book suggests that if peace is to be achieved in either its negative (reduction or elimination of violence) or more positive forms, it will be necessary to “keep hope alive” by studying and cultivating both aspects of a bidimensional conception of hope—we need both wishes and “optimal” (realistic) expectations for what might be achieved. Perhaps some readers will find this book poignantly out of time, given the current seemingly intractable conflict, but I take hope from Leshem's “applied implications” (p. 183). When hope is studied and disaggregated into wishes and expectations, we might be able to engage in some conflict transformation by building more trust with “adversarial messengers” who wish for peace because it is their necessity for survival, and, difficult as it is to imagine in the current crises, leaders need to promote “optimal hope”—the recognition that wishes and desires for peace need to be married to realistic expectations (so as to avoid the downsides of false hopes and dashed promises). Leshem concludes his book with two important quotes from different “sides” of the conflict (Schenker, 2013), pointing to the need for hope as a catalyst for change. Recognizing that humans have just as often not succeeded in positive change as succeeded, it is clear that success requires those “who diligently work to make [it] happen” (Leshem quoting Zreik, p. 186). This important book should lead us through more sophisticated and nuanced understandings of what hope is conceptually and empirically, so we can, hopefully, harness deeper understandings to more effective behaviors.