Drawing the arguments together, we propose that the potential held by entangled memory for plurality, dignity and inclusivity allows us to draw conclusions about the quality of peace. The mnemonic formations chosen for this study serve as diagnostic sites for peace. A just peace is, in our analysis, a function of entangled memory and stresses the key importance of plurality, dignity and inclusivity. This entangled memory is fluid and dynamic, and is constantly renegotiated, thus allowing for adaptations over time so that all parties to the conflict can shape their collective identity in relation to – rather than in opposition to – each other.

Viewing plurality, dignity and inclusivity as dimensions of entanglement prompts us to investigate both the mechanisms and contents through which a society’s relationship to the past impacts on its current frictions, tensions and points of contestation. The analysis of how the three elements interplay allows for a nuanced conclusion as to the quality of peace, thus deviating from a linear understanding between the politics of memory and peace. Instead, a variety of configurations through which societies manage their pasts is thinkable, based on prevailing power relations and resource distribution as well as wider normative constraints. An understanding of a given mnemonic formation in light of its plurality, inclusivity and the degree of dignity it confers gives us the opportunity to advocate for peace as mnemonically grounded, intersubjective, relational and contextual.

This stands in contrast to mnemonic formations characterised by memory strands that have few mutual connections, reflect high degrees of homogeneity within each strand, and leave suffering unacknowledged and memory strands separate. While broad agreement about certain versions of the past does not have to be detrimental, in societies with high levels of contestations about the past it is more likely to produce a number of peace(s), each of which is turned inwards and is static in nature. Instead of an intersubjective understanding of a just peace they may lead to a form of co-existence which is susceptible to manipulation and division in the future. Parties to the conflict (in the widest sense) thus shape their collective identities in relation to each other. How they view the past will be an important factor in whether this relationship is predominantly cooperative or oppositional.

Importantly, a just peace is not a function of plurality alone, dignity alone or inclusivity alone. It is perfectly imaginable, for instance, that one might find a mnemonic manifestation shaped by a plurality of memories, with different interpretations of the past represented throughout society. As long as these interpretations fail to restore the dignity of the victims and survivors of violence, however, a just peace will not be possible. Similarly, inclusivity alone would not be sufficient for the emergence of a just form of peace, since there would always be a risk that the narratives of those suffering from violence and those who perpetrated it are put on an equal footing, empowering those who seek to erase past and present atrocities from public memory. Finally, dignity represented in such a mnemonic formation alone would also be limited, where such dignity is only extended to particular sectors of society and denied to others despite the plurality of memories permitted.

How memories of different actors, groups and collectives are entangled thus mirrors the very social relations that make up the quality of peace. How the social fabric of memory is woven together influences whether peace processes will flourish, or alternatively stall or regress. Memories emerge from the ways in which the past is dealt with in a given political and social context and have a considerable impact not only on how a society views its own story in the past but, importantly, on social relations within that society in the present and the future.

Where there is little mutual conversation about the past and hardly any attempts to acknowledge the suffering of all victim groups, a peaceful social order seems highly unlikely. It is imaginable as a negative, ceasefire-based peace at best, and is highly vulnerable to breakdown due to the grievances from the past that continue to simmer. In contrast, movements for peace will be better able to develop in a more pluralistic, dignified and inclusive memory landscape than in a homogeneous, stratified society where there is little acknowledgement of other groups’ sufferings in the past and present. The former offers openings into new forms of collaboration, solidarity and conversation, while the latter makes such engagement risky for those challenging the status quo, or difficult at best. Where funding structures and political power alliances coincide to support a frozen status quo, even the best-intentioned peace efforts will struggle to gain sufficient momentum to be sustainable over a long period of time and to mobilise a sufficiently wide supporter base. Indeed, powerful gatekeepers may prevent more meaningful change from happening as it might threaten their power base.

So, while the memory processes that this book has looked at are collective in nature, they are not homogenous or flat. They are the product of multi-layered processes with a variety of interests involved, including the agendas of local organisations, peace organisations, ethnic entrepreneurs, civil society, governments, international organisations and tourists – all of whom may have different views on the peace process concerned. Some of these agents may be predominantly interested in notions of reconciliation, whereas others may prioritise justice as a precondition for the establishment of meaningful peace.

We therefore advocate for a contextually sensitive approach to memory-making and peace-making, that is, one that is highly specific to the society in which it unfolds. What plurality, dignity and inclusivity mean concretely varies from society to society and is subject to empirical analysis. There is always a need to take into account the historical and social particularities that affect the ways in which peace is emplaced, enacted, narrated and performed. One could, for instance, consider the given geographies in which peace unfolds: in divided societies a big challenge for peacebuilders is to locate spaces, agents, narratives and events that span across otherwise rigidly defined identity groups. This endeavour is particularly challenging where those groups are geographically separated or dispersed across a wider region in the form of large diasporas. In such cases, finding opportunities to create shared spaces requires an in-depth knowledge of society and its memory politics, and meaningful solutions are hardly ever applicable elsewhere, in a generalised way. Where such spaces have been successfully created, mobilised or activated, however, they have often served as microcosms for memory-engaged peace-building.

This does not mean, clearly, that such projects are done effortlessly in every political context. Moves towards more inclusive and dignified histories are often hard fought for rather than volunteered. These struggles are necessarily context-specific and each must be considered in its historical and social context if we are to comprehend the significance of each case for the emergence of just peace. In any of the contexts, mnemonic formations can be politically instrumentalised and exploited for the benefit of power holders and elites.

In all of these processes, it is crucial to think beyond linear temporalities, as peace is shaped by highly dynamic and complex uses of the past. The trauma and suffering that violence causes does not linearly fade from society. Instead, past injustices – even when they may have happened generations ago – translate into people’s everyday lives in the present, sometimes in muted, sometimes in amplified, ways. Indeed, our case studies all demonstrate the lingering, fluctuating and often unpredictable effects that the legacies of colonial rule, spatial divisions, genocide denial or lack of respect for the deceased can have on survivors and descendants. In contemporary politics, fragments of the past can be selectively activated to bring particular grievances to light. Importantly, however, although these politics can sometimes be remarkably resilient, there may be moments of rupture and transformation where cracks in commemorative politics can open up for transformations towards a just peace.

Looking through the lens of memory politics thus enables a rethinking of peace. Peace can no longer be conceived of as an abstract, singular thing; something unobtainable, as noted by Dietrich and Sützl (1997). Instead, the findings of this book show that peace is grounded in particular times and in particular spaces; it is an entangled process rather than an outcome. By identifying the key factors of plurality, dignity and inclusivity in memory politics, it is possible to recognise the different ways in which a just peace may manifest itself in societies dealing with difficult memories of violence.

Hopes for the future: new avenues for Peace Studies and Memory Studies

Memory and peace are both value-laden concepts; they are contested, fluid and constantly under negotiation. It is not a small task to take on a more systematic reading of their interplay. Nevertheless, given their centrality for conflict-affected societies this has been our ambition. Building on and expanding insights and approaches from both Memory Studies and Peace Studies, this book has attempted to bridge the gap between those two fields.

As critical peace scholars, we have been inspired by the field of Memory Studies and its rich case studies of societies dealing with difficult heritages. The profound insights of Memory Studies have spoken to us and helped us criticise and bring nuance to research on peace-building, which at times has been overly instrumental, apolitical and technical, and constructed around a liberal peace agenda with little concern for the underlying, sometimes subtle tensions that play out in interrelational politics of memory. At the same time, from our viewpoint, the work of critical peace research regarding manifestations of agency in their spatial and temporal expressions can make important contributions to the study of memory, making visible how memory politics shape, legitimise and challenge peace across time and space, generating authority for particular versions of peace and social order. We thus hope that our work contributes to the literature of Memory Studies by highlighting the political and societal impacts of memory, as well as the contingency of memory within shifting political contexts of conflict-affected societies.

The comparison of five mnemonic formations in five very different conflict-affected societies has highlighted how deeply entwined memory-making and peace-making are. Inspired by the concept of the entanglement of memory, we have been able to identify systematically key facets of how memory work impacts the quality of peace. The findings are remarkable in their salience across all five cases. We also believe that the observations concerning the impact of the politics of memory on the quality of peace are generalisable, at least to a certain extent. Let us then, on this note, emphasise the wider meaning and applicability of the SANE analytical framework, which has formed the backbone of our studies across five cases. We hope that researchers may feel inspired to apply the framework to other case studies, thereby adding to an archive of cases varying in space and time that can be compared, generating further findings. Likewise, the methodology of using particular mnemonic formations as diagnostic sites means that other mnemonic formations in the case countries can be selected, to be compared and contrasted with the mnemonic formations that we chose to study.

The central contribution of this book generated through this ethnographic comparison is the theoretical conceptualisation of the ways in which memory entangles, identifying three factors that are of particular importance in determining the quality of peace: plurality, the restoration of dignity, and inclusivity. A just peace thus becomes possible when memory is entangled in a way that is pluralistic, inclusive and contributes to embracing dignity. As much as we hope that scholars of peace and of memory alike will find this synthesis of interest from a conceptual point of view, we also hope that policymakers and practitioners may be able to build on these insights, and may put them into practice in ways that contribute to the task of building a just peace by addressing inequalities, marginalisations and omissions in how the past is remembered.