"The hatred is too deep for there ever to be peace."

It has become commonplace to hear such words from those whose lives are affected by the conflict in Palestine-Israel. There was a time when people thought the same of Northern Ireland. But what seemed unthinkable has come to pass: Unionist and Nationalist leaders, once bitter enemies, now sit in government together, and they have declared the conflict to be over.

Yet a hard-won political settlement, even one that redresses historic injustices and sets up structures for all communities and citizens to be represented equally, can only set the stage for long-term reconciliation. What happens on the ground – in neighborhoods, schools, playgrounds and workplaces – will determine if a peace is cold or warm, and ultimately if it succeeds or fails.

A groundbreaking study by Paul Connolly, Orla Muldoon and Susan Kehoe of the NFER at Queen's Centre for Educational Research, of the attitudes and experiences of children born in Northern Ireland in 1997 – the year in which a permanent ceasefire took hold – provides a snapshot of how that region's children are faring as their society emerges from conflict.

While it reveals how persistent the fault lines in a divided society can be, it should also provide hope to people in Northern Ireland – and perhaps in other places too – that societies need not be the hostages of their pasts.

The study asked a randomly-chosen representative sample of 667 children from across Northern Ireland about their lifestyles, activities and identities. Questions and scales were designed to measure children's attitudes towards members of their own communities as well as those from the other main tradition.

While it is well-known that the vast majority of children in Northern Ireland are residentially segregated in Catholic or Protestant neighborhoods and attend separate schools, Connolly et al. demonstrate that children also have different cultural experiences.

Certain holiday destinations, for instance, are much more likely to be frequented by families from one community than the other. Newspapers children see at home tend to represent the views of one or other community more fully, and even some of the sports children play are more strongly associated with one tradition or the other.

By the age of ten, children in the study had formed strong national identities. Over 80 percent of Protestant children but fewer than 40 percent of Catholics answered the question “what is the capital of your country?” with ‘Belfast.’ Nearly half of Catholic children identified Dublin as the capital, an answer given by fewer than five percent of Protestants.

While half of Catholic children thought the national identity ‘Irish’ best described them, for Protestants well over half identified with the term ‘British.’ Interestingly, about half of all children also identified themselves as ‘Northern Irish,’ suggesting that a common identity can exist alongside strong communal traditions, a finding that should be encouraging to Israelis and Palestinians, for instance, who fear that a common future (for example in a binational state) would dilute their own identities.

Connolly and colleagues are concerned about whether the relatively separate existences of children in Northern Ireland translate into negative attitudes towards members of the other main community. Here the news seems largely good. Children expressed strong 'in-group preferences' (defined as a preference to be with and engage in activities associated with those of their own community), but there is little evidence that they form 'out-group prejudices' (negative attitudes, stereotypes and prejudices) towards the other.

The authors pose serious questions. Should the aim of interventions be to eradicate all forms of segregation or is the goal that children should have a strong sense of their own culture and identity? Is this sense of difference necessarily a bad thing and does it necessarily mean that segregation will result?

Traditionally, whether asked in Ireland, Palestine-Israel, South Africa, Belgium and other divided, post-conflict or post-colonial societies, such enquiries have remained in the realm of political debates and diplomacy. Some of the concern is understandably animated by revulsion at how nationalism or exclusivist identities have fueled and been bolstered by conflict.

There is evidence that in certain contexts of adversity, a strong sense of ethnic identity or pride (for example among children of Mexican and Chinese background in Los Angeles, or African American children in Baltimore) is associated with less daily stress, higher levels of happiness and better cognitive outcomes. Little is understood about causal mechanisms or about how better child outcomes associated with ethnic or communal identity variables might in turn promote social reconciliation in a post-conflict setting.

Yet the fascinating results emerging from Northern Ireland – and the directions for further research and action they indicate – suggest something diplomats and politicians haven't considered: evidence-based peacemaking.

references
Paul Connolly, Orla Muldoon and Susan Kehoe, "The Attitudes and Experiences of Children Born in 1997 in Northern Ireland: The Report of a Research Study Commissioned by BBC Northern Ireland," May 2007

Lisa Kiang, Melinda Gonzales-Backen, Tiffany Yip, Melissa Witkow and Andrew J Fulgini, "Ethnic Identity and the Daily Psychological Well-Being of Adolescents From Mexican and Chinese Backgrounds," Child Development, September/October 2006, Volume 77, Number 5, pp 1338-1350.

Margaret O'Brien Caughy, Patricia J O'Campo, Saundra Murray Nettles, Kimberly Fraleigh Lohrfink," Neighborhood Matters: Racial Socialization of African American Children," Child Development, September/October 2006, Volume 77, Number 5, pp 1220-1236.