Parrhesia as the most effective way to cope with in-group war crimes

Shared beliefs about war atrocities committed not only by the outgroup but also by the in-group play a major role in post-conflict reconciliation. Even years after the cease-fire, in fact, a competitive victimhood may often last, trying to assign to the in-group only the role of the “true” victim of violence (Bar-Tal, 2009). On the contrary, in order to achieve a sound reconciliation, it is important to recognize the responsibilities of both victims and perpetrators (Nadler & Shnabel, 2008). Our contribution aims to explore consequences on young Italians of different typologies of narration about in-group war crimes committed during the invasion of Ethiopia (1935-36). These atrocities are well-know by historians but still unknown to the vast majority of Italians (Del Boca, 1995). In particular we are developing a line of research exploring the effects of evasive vs. parrhesiastic (Foucalt, 1983) narratives. We hypothesise that speaking the truth about in-group war crimes is a more effective social action since it not only recognises the needs of empowerment of the victims, but also enables descendants of perpetrators to frankly come to terms with their history (Leone & Sarrica, 2012). Data were collected trough quasi-experimental procedures. Dependent variables were measured through multiple tools including self-reports, FACS, multimodal analysis of reactions, observation of restorative behaviours. Results show that young people exposed to parrhesiastic narratives about in-group war crimes display more surprise, anger and negative emotions than those exposed to evasive description. However, they also show more restorative intentions. Theoretical and applicative developments are discussed.