No Permission to Cross: Cypriot womens dialogue across

the divide

MARIA HADJIPAVLOUDepartment of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Abstract Much scholarly attention has been given to the study of the gendered aspectof ethno-national conflicts trying to understand the experiences of men and women in aconflict situation and to what extent these shape different types of intervention forpeacemaking and peace-building. Are womens experiences of conflict different frommens? Do women have a different voice than the mainstream dominant discoursesproduced by patriarchal systems? Do women in conflict societies respond to militarismand the violation of human rights differently from men? Are womens needs for identityand peace different depending on which ethnicreligious group they belong to? Are theirneeds different from those of men? This article will try to answer the above questionsfocusing on a feminist understanding of conflict in Cyprus. The main contention putforward in the article is that gender is an important factor to take into account whenconflict societies are engaging in peace processes. To this end, data are analysed fromdifferent inter-ethnic womens workshops in which the author was either a participantobserver, or a facilitator. This analysis of the data demonstrates that Greek and TurkishCypriot womens voices and experiences are diverse and multiple. Both men and womenare socialised in the same nationalist paradigms, a fact that can explain how in the initialphases of the dialogue processes both groups of women tended to reproduce officialdiscourses. Their own experiences and differentiated voices began to emerge only after agendered understanding of the conflict was introduced and trust and conflict resolutionskills were instituted in the dialogue process. Drawing attention to the gradual shift ofperspectives in the context of inter-ethnic workshops, the article concludes by arguing thatwomens dialogue can challenge the omnipotence of the state and may open up a new spacewhereby a diversity of perspectives and mutual trust can emerge.

Flying Away to the Other SideOur birthplace is split in two and weAre caught on barbed wire-hybridsTurk and Greek alike

Is it December is it JulyChoose your SideAre you Turkish or Greek

Correspondence: Maria Hadjipavlou, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Universityof Cyprus, PO Box 20537, Nicosia 1678, Cyprus. E-mail: mariat@ucy.ac.cy

Gender, Place and CultureVol. 13, No. 4, pp. 329351, August 2006

ISSN 0966-369X print/ISSN 1360-0524 online/06/040329-23 q 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09663690600808429

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

Theres no Purgatory in between.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

We cannot be from both SidesBecause we are two, one and the otherYou refused to believe inWe are loneliness itself (M. Yashin 2000)

Choose your Side!

In ethno-national conflicts members of opposing parties are called throughdominant national narratives, which are patriarchal, militaristic and over-simplified, to choose their side and locate themselves on the conflict map.Chronology, (December 1963, 1967, July 1974, 1983, just to mention the mostcontested dates in the recent history of Cyprus) and issues, such as victimhood,truth, human rights violations, and justice acquire a monofocal meaningaccording to the processes of constructing memories and of forgetting whichenter into what Volkan (1979, p. 15) aptly termed chosen glories and chosentraumas. What are the implications of this bipolar scenario for women andconflict resolution groups, who view political and ethno-national conflicts ashaving a multi-layered texture? Does a conflict culture, as it is defined by masculinist politics,1 allow a space for the development of alternative options andanalyses? What does a feminist understanding of the Cyprus conflict add andwhat have been Cypriot womens interventions?

To discuss the above questions this article will present a feminist analysis ofgender and conflict in Cyprus and try to determine how the inscription of conflictonto the Cypriot landscape can be changed through feminist practices such asdialogue, perspective-taking and conflict resolution workshops. The constitutionof the enemy, a practice that lies at the heart of masculinist politics, will bepresented along with ways in which, through conflict resolution workshops,Cypriots attempt to renegotiate their sense of each other, and of the conflict inwhich they find themselves.

First, I will give a brief outline of the history of the Cyprus conflict in order toexplain the complexities of the current situation. Secondly, I present a generaldiscussion on gender and conflict followed by an analysis of Cypriot womensattempts to renegotiate their sense of each other, their multiple identities and theconflict. I use data from conflict resolution womens workshops and inter-ethnicdialogues during the period 199596, 19992001 and 2003 in which I was either anactive participant or participantobserver and/or facilitator. Finally, I highlightsome lessons learned and the need for future systematic research. One assumptionupon which I work is that both feminist perspectives and conflict resolutionprocesses open spaces for mutual acknowledgement of power disparities, creationof empathy, the need for emotionality which lead to the development of a newshared narrative representing the whole story thus avoiding the compartmenta-lisation of issues which constitute part of the current unresolved Cyprus problem.

History of the Cyprus Conflict

The geostrategic location of Cyprus in the easternmost part of the Mediterraneanhas made it vulnerable to outside conquests and interference, each leaving their

330 M. Hadjipavlou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

imprint on the local landscape. By far the most predominant character of theisland was determined in the second millennium BC with the arrival andsettlement of the Mycenaean/Achaeans from mainland Greece. They formed city-kingdoms on the Minoan model and introduced the Greek language, religion andculture. To this day the Greek Cypriots (GCs), especially the nationalists, refer tothis period to stress the Hellenic heritage and its continuity to the present.Following this period the Greek Orthodox Church, together with Byzantineculture, constituted another strong referent point for GCs. The Turkish Cypriot(TC) nationalists stress that it was the three centuries of the Ottoman presence(15711878) that determined the inter-ethnic character of the island. In thepre-nationalist era there were several uprisings by the Christian and Moslempopulation of Cyprus against the ruling elites which were made up of Ottomanadministrators, landlords and the higher Orthodox clergy (Hill, 1952;Koumoulides, 1974; Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, 1987; Kizilyurek, 2002). These jointsocial protests are often recalled, especially by the left in each community, to stressthe past co-existence and collaborative social fabric among Greeks and Turks ofCyprus. The fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans marked a deep historicaltrauma for the Greeks, as did the decline of the Ottoman Empire for the Turks.Such historic events gave rise to diverse patriotic myths and legends that stillappear in school textbooks.

In 1824 the emergence of the Greek nation state and the trends of modernityimpacted upon the traditional society of Cyprus as well as on the traditionalco-existence of Muslims and Christians. Religious identities were ethnicised and asplit in the co-existence fabric was introduced in the form of exclusive identities ofGreeks and Turks accompanied by the past myth of historic enmity betweenGreeks and Turks. Furthermore, the British took control of the island in 1878 andin 1925 Cyprus became a British colony. Divides between Greeks and Turkscrystallised during the anti-colonial struggle in 195559 in the context of whichthe Greeks of Cyprus fought the British for Enosis (union) with motherlandGreece and the Turks of Cyprus fought the British for Taksim, that is for union ofpart of the island with motherland Turkey. Therefore, the 1950s was also a periodwhich gave rise to intense inter-ethnic mistrust, suspicion and fears. According toTurkish Cypriot writers (Salih, 1968; Nedjatigil, 1977; Kizilyurek, 2002), theTurkish Cypriot leadership expected that sooner or later the Greek fighters wouldterrorise the TC community, and so by 1957 the Turkish Resistance Organisation(TMT) was formed with the goal to counteract the Greek-based NationalOrganisation of Cypriot Fighters (EOKA). Separation existed not only betweencommunities but also within each community, between right and left factions,destroying spaces for co-existence and cooperation. The British colonialistspoliticised communal differences to serve their colonial interests in the MiddleEast (Pollis, 1973, 1996), and furthermore reinforced the rise of two antagonisticnationalisms and competing visions for Cyprus based on each groups primordialattachments to their respective motherlands.

Cyprus had a political agreement imposed upon it. A compromise settlementwas put into effect by outside stakeholdersGreece, Turkey and Britainexcluding both partition and union and instead promoting independence, whichled to the creation of the Cyprus Republic in 1960. The top-down settlementignored local realities (Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, 1987) and thus the constitutionalarrangements, that were also divisive, left no room for integrative politics. Inter-ethnic violence broke out in December 1963 and again in 1967 (Kyriakides, 1968).

Cypriot Womens Dialogue Across the Divide 331

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

In 1963 this crisis resulted in the creation of the Green Line, a dividing line in thecapital of Nicosia to keep the two warring factions apart. TC enclaves were set upin the major cities of the island where TCs moved for security reasons (Patrick,1976; Attalides, 1979, Volkan, 1979). The year 1967 witnessed the first concretemove for the division and segregation of the two communities in the creation of aProvisional Turkish Cypriot Administration. The TCs had withdrawn from thegovernment in 1963, which meant that the GCs exclusively ran the CyprusRepublic. During these crises Turkey tried to intervene militarily but theAmerican administration prevented this for fear of an outbreak of a war betweenher two NATO allies, Greece and Turkey.

The period between 1963 and 1974 was a time of unequal social and economicdevelopment, a factor that drew the two communities further apart and a realitythat persists to this day. GCs experienced economic prosperity and modernisation,whereas TCs especially in the enclaves entered a period of economic and culturaldependency on Turkey. In July 1974 the Greek fascist junta launched a coup detatto topple the Makarios government, accusing the GC leader of betraying theEnosis ideal. This prompted military Turkish interventions, leading to the presentdivision of the island into two homogeneous spaces. A rearrangement of theGreen Line into the Attila Line (120 miles long) emerged.

A long series of inter-communal high-level negotiations have been conductedon and off since 1975 under the auspices of the UN, but to this day no agreementhas been reached. All negotiations were conducted exclusively by male politiciansand gendered aspects of the divide have never been raised, even in the context ofthe latest initiative led by the UN Secretary General in what became known as theAnnan Plan for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus conflict. This plan wasdefeated in referenda on 24 April 2004, whereby 76% of GCs voted no to the Planand 67% of TCs voted yes. This marked a new turning-point in the recent historyof the conflict pointing to the fact that the super ordinate goal (Sherif et al., 1961),i.e. the accession of the island to the European Union, was not strong enough tohelp both sides overcome past divisions and fears and imagine a shared future.

In the meantime, new generations have grown up in each community fosteringdistorted information about the other and feelings of mistrust, stereotyping andpsychological distancing. Ritual commemorations, selective histories andmemories are reproduced and used as texts in our schools to dehumanise theother and often to justify division (Bryant, 1998; Hadjipavlou, 2002). It is withinsuch a nationalist context that women and other social groups from both sideshave, for years, been challenging the master narratives and the enemyconstruction processes. The partial opening of the Atila Line on 23 April 2003,by the Turkish authorities, marked a historical opportunity for inter-ethnic(re)rapprochement which now allows citizens from both communities to visit theother side especially their homes and properties after 30 and 40 years ofseparation. No violent incidents occurred; a public euphoria and a desire forsolution and reunification have been created. New personal stories evolved acrossthe Line. Prior to the opening, thousands of TCs, primarily women and youth,were out in the streets promoting an end to partition and to ethnic divisions andclaiming this island is ours, meaning a fulfilment of the re-unification desire onwhich the bi-communalist movement has been based.

Despite the cross-visits to and from the north to the south, the militaristicenvironment and the enemy images are still visible in the barbed wires, themilitary posts, the blue berets and the blue and green posters which read: Buffer

332 M. Hadjipavlou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

UN Zone; Beware Mine Fields; NO Entry; Occupied Zone; Dead Zone;No PhotographsSecurity Zone. Flags of all kinds are seen together or apart: theGreek flag, the flag of the Cyprus Republic, the red Turkish flag, the blue UN flag,the TRNC flag and now the EU flag, all reminding us how strong nationalsymbols and nationalism abound on the island.

The Line No Permit to Cross: Occupied area

By 1960 the island population comprised 18% TCs and 80% GCs, with 2%Armenians, Maronites and Latins. The population today totals approximately750,000 living in the south and close to 200,000 in the north; they are divided bythe Line. The Line is about 120 miles long, stretching across the island separatingthe north from the south (see Figure 1). According to ones positioning in politics,ideology and history, this line is referred to as the green line, the ceasefire line, thedead zone, the demarcation line, the partitioning line, the Attila line, the no-mansland, or the border. These different designations of the Line constitute part of thecollective historical and political experience in each Cypriot community. This Linehas acquired both a symbolic and a physical presence in daily life. The ideology ofrapprochement after 1974 invited citizens to challenge the Line and rediscover ordiscover each other through dialogue and thus explore the diverse cartography ofhistorical and political experiences which the Line silences. The Line also featuresin the artistic and literary productions in each community and has become atheme for art exhibitions, poetry collections and dance manifestations.

Women often feel that their bodies have been colonised by the Line.2 CynthiaCockburn, in her book The Line (2004), describes the performance of a GC dancerwalking the line in her effort to converse with the partition of Cyprus in multiplelevels and she writes:

What strikes me about this scene is that the dividing line seems to bealive. The rope slithers and slides, now one thing, now another. Thishelps me to see how a geo-political partition is not just armoured fencing,it is also a line inside our heads, and in our hearts. In fact the physicalfence is a manifestation of these more cognitive and emotional lines that

Figure 1. Map of Cyprus.

Cypriot Womens Dialogue Across the Divide 333

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

shape our thoughts and feelings . . . When we are afraid or angry at someidentifiable moment, a line springs out and plants itself in the earth as abarrier. It becomes The Line, and passage across it is controlled, byuniformed men, at a Checkpoint.

These internal demarcation lines are indeed the most difficult to rearrangebecause of the emotional and psychological baggage they carry. The newgenerations under the influence of their schooling and official narratives haveformed an imaginary of the other and the inscription is often so sharp thatrealities have been formed on assumptions that have never been tested. Oncethese bipolar images become complex and blurred, as can happen during conflictresolution workshops, then the participants start confronting their own mentalmaps. With the help of a facilitator they begin to rearrange the mapping. It isusually a painful process but a necessary, liberating one if people want to movebeyond the conflict culture which dichotomises experiences and uses hierarchiesto politically manipulate differences and undermine shared cultural experiences.

Feminist Strategies and Conflict Resolution

One of the underlying principles of conflict resolution is the acknowledgementthat power inequalities in all its manifestations, including socio-economicasymmetries, constitute causes of conflicts. The basic human needs (Burton, 1990)perspective promotes the view that issues of identity, security, recognition, justiceand dignity need to be fulfilled in conflict societies whereby no group would feelanother was dominating it. Divided societies often view conflict as genderless andleaderships (predominantly male) mobilise the polity to ascribe to the nationalcause. Conflict resolution and feminism converse to the extent that they share thecommon goal of challenging dominant national discourses and promoting theview that one of the Lines in conflict societies comprises the gender order of things.A gendered understanding and analysis of conflict experience is, therefore,necessary so as to gain new insights into the causes of conflict and the kind ofconflict resolution, new civic constitutional culture and social change that wouldbe desirable. Feminist and conflict resolution perspectives promote the view thatthe ways we construct ethno-national identities cannot change unless we alsochange the way we construct gender identities. This includes changing all thesocialising institutions. Moreover, it is emphasised that the fears, needs, interests,historical grievances and concerns of both sides must be accounted for and thepresence and contributions of men and women should be equally valued.

The consequences of armed conflict on the lives of women and children hasbeen well documented by national and international organisations and academicresearchers (Enloe, 1989, 2000; Lentin, 1997). Ann Tickner wrote in 2001 about herexperiences of the war and bombing of Kosovo and how the media reportsportrayed NATO spokesmen with charts and maps briefing on bombings, targetsand the wonders of new high technology warfare:

Beyond the images of the men, we saw more chaotic images of refugeesmany of them women and children being helped by aid workers, manyof them also women. All of them seemed overwhelmed by the task.These are all gendered images: male heroes making sacrifices for theircountries, women far from the centres of power, caring for the victims oras victims themselves. (p. 39)

334 M. Hadjipavlou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

Moreover, Coomeraswamy (2001) reminds us, victimisation of women in ethnicconflicts takes many forms, their bodies are turned into platforms for revenge andhumiliation of the enemy:

. . . it is necessary to understand that rape, sexual violence and forcedpregnancy are directly related to the male dominated social systems andvalues that govern those who are fighting. A communitys honour,especially at times of conflict, often rests on the bodies of women. Todefile that honour is to humiliate the whole community. Womens bodiesbecome the battlefield, the point of communication between men . . .(Coomeraswamy, 2001, p. 11)

Anthias and Yuval-Davis (1989) maintain that womens involvement andparticipation in the processes of war and national struggles can take thefollowing forms: biological reproducers of members of ethnic groups, and inparticipating both in the ideological reproduction of the ethnic collectivity andtransmission of its culture. Thus, women are also engaged actively in thereconstruction, reproduction and transformation of ethnic and national identityand become participants in national, economic, political and military struggles.Ethnic nationalisms reinforce the power and privileges of patriarchal institutions(such as the family, church, schools, political parties, etc.) by constraining womento demonstrate their loyalty to these institutions and by turning them into symbolsof their national collectivities.

Cynthia Cockburn (1998) informs us from her research in many conflicts thatthe role of women during conflict is primarily humanitarian (securing food,shelter and health) as well as trying to heal themselves and others of psychologicaltraumas and wounds. Women put their traditional roles aside and become themain breadwinners and heads of families. Young girls mature and become womenmore quickly, and if mothers are killed they assume the mother role. Women alsobuild networks for solidarity with other women and form groups to protestresumption of violence both in and outside the home.

While before and during the conflict women are used as symbols andreproducers, after warfare and violent conflicts women are called upon toreconstruct society. Many women in Bosnia, for instance, advocated theestablishment of peace institutions and centres to promote non-violence,a gender equality agenda and womens rights (Andric-Ruzicic, 1997; Golan,1997; McCann, 1997; Senjak, 1997). In many instances, however, as Harding (1986)informs us, victimisation of women does not cease after warfare. Widows andwomen heads of families are viewed as a threat to changing social traditions,which bolster male supremacy and promote womens subordination.

Feminists, especially radical feminists, have promoted the conviction that thereis a relationship among all forms of structural violenceinterpersonal, domestic,social, institutional and international. The issues of inclusion and exclusion arehighlighted by both feminists and conflict resolution approaches. Imbalances inpower sharing in a male-dominated world where womens participation andperspectives on important issues of war and peace are still very profound. Thedichotomy of space into private and public spheres still continues and globalstatistics are a testament to this asymmetry. Patriarchy builds its own self-preservation mechanisms, as Sylvester reminds us:

Cypriot Womens Dialogue Across the Divide 335

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

As with most accepted ideologies and practices, once in place, patriarchyis self sustaining: if a majority of politicians, priests, ministers, popes,professors, chairs of corporate boards, physicians, job supervisors,judges and peace makers are always men, then challenges to that groupsmonopoly can actually seem unnatural, silly or even harmful to socialorder . . . Patriarchy is a system in which there is constant, covert, low-intensity, structural warfare against womenin war and in peace . . .With the cessation of hostilities women have been abruptly dismissedfrom the homefront jobs that pay, and sent back to their naturalnonpaying jobs in the private household. Both the shooting wars andsubsequent peace contain hidden wars of dominance over women.(Sylvester, 1989, pp. 99100)

The under-representation of women in decision-making centres where issues ofwar and peace are being decided was aptly brought up during the Fourth WorldConference on Women in Beijing, 1995 and is also mentioned in the Plan of ActionDocument. The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 of 2000 reaffirmed, amongother issues, the significance of women in the process of prevention and resolutionof conflicts and in peace-building. It also noted the need to consolidate data on theimpact of armed conflict on women and girls and expressed its willingness toincorporate a gender perspective into peacekeeping operations, urging theSecretary General to ensure that, where appropriate, field operations wouldinclude a gender component.

In national governments and parliaments such as in the Scandinaviancountries, where there is a critical mass of women in the centres of decision-making, it was observed that the priorities of those states were focused more onissues of peace, abolition of all forms of violence and discrimination, promotion ofgender equality, quality education for all in contrast to the political and socialagendas of other countries in which women were absent or few in decision-making bodies (Brock-Utne, 1985). Women, Brock-Utne (1985) has found in herresearch, are socialised to support, on the whole, more equal distribution ofresources than men, reduction of military budgets, advocate dialogue and non-violence as a means to solve differences and conflicts. Another finding in Brock-Utnes work relates to the structural and non-hierarchical changes promoted bywomen and men who support positive peace (i.e. gender equality which meansaccess to equal opportunities and resources). In a state with high defenceexpenditures and rigid patriarchal structures it is observed that women are at adisadvantage to men in terms of employment opportunities, and are dismissedfrom work more easily. This points further to the need for a feminist policy ondefence and security.

The work of Cypriot women I will discuss below connects to the above issues inthe sense that some womens groups in Cyprus have refused to conform to thenationalist agenda of patriarchal institutions. They have decided to look atwomens condition through a gender lens and feminist ideology and values whichthey perceive as being connected to the conflict resolution principles ofcooperation, non-domination and creative synergy. These women tried totranscend the Line in all its manifestations and create spaces for the articulation oftheir experiences of the conflict and of the Other. In addition, these womenopened a new space for a shared narrative to be created with possibilities forreconciliation and renewed relationships.

336 M. Hadjipavlou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

Conflict resolution puts citizens back into the process of political participationand empowerment, as does feminism, in that citizens become agents for politicaland social change. In other words, processes within and between societies cancreate a political environment, which can influence de-escalation of the conflictand contribute to its resolution. The pro-active view of national interests and thefeminist understanding of security concerns support the view that protractedconflict relationships are susceptible to a range of influences from both official andunofficial sources (Kelman, 1993; Cockburn, 2004). Let us now look at Cypriotwomens experiences and efforts to reach across to the Other and jointly create afeminist understanding of the conflict culture within and across the divide.

Cypriot Womens Intervention and Feminist Practices

I have spoken and written in detail elsewhere about the conflict resolution andunofficial citizens work in Cyprus (Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, 1998; Hadjipavlou,2002). Here I will mainly discuss Cypriot womens voices and efforts in securing agender understanding of the conflict and peace-building. I refer to two specificgroups, the Bi-communal Womens Group (BWG) (199596) and Hands Acrossthe Divide (HAD) (2003present). The memory and collective experience ofconflict events for the Cypriots across the divide differ in time and intensity. It isimportant for each group to understand these different experiences relating toethnic nationalisms and to a patriarchal social system. However, the collectiveattitude in each community still persists that it is only we who suffered and arethe victims. What happened to the other community was unintended; it was anaccident of war, each claims.

The BWG (199596) was composed of 22 women, 11 from each side, of differentages, social, ideological and educational backgrounds. They came together at theinitiative of a third party, a Fulbright scholar, and two local women coordinators.3

I was the coordinator in the south and Sevgul Uludag, a feminist journalist, wasthe coordinator from the north. This was the first attempt to introduce a genderlens and feminist perspectives onto the Cyprus conflict and to engage in dialoguerelating to our perceptions of the Other, and to choose jointly if and how to moveforward. The BWG participants were not all feminists; some were aware of genderanalysis, but others felt that the conflict was genderless because everybodysuffered, so did the women. Some of the women had been to other bi-communalconflict resolution mixed groups while some met the Other for the first time. Thegroup worked either separately or together twice a week for 9 months. When theTurkish Cypriot women were given permission by the military to cross the Line tothe buffer zone the meetings were held at the Ledra Palace Hotel, which is underthe control of the UN peacekeeping contingent. A room was provided for thegroup with rudimentary facilities. Over the years, for many of us the Ledra Palacebecame the symbol for rapprochement and conflict resolution work but for thenationalists from both communities it was a place of suspects who mixed withthe enemy.

In Cyprus no independent womens movement or feminist womens groupshave been established. All existing womens organisations are affiliated topolitical parties and often adopt the party agenda which is based on a maleunderstanding of politics and the conflict, excluding the gender issue as being notimportant enough to be tackled. HAD constitutes the first attempt to form anindependent womens non-governmental organisation (NGO). Together with

Cypriot Womens Dialogue Across the Divide 337

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

other women, I was one of the co-founders. It was registered in 2001 in Britain dueto the political obstacle of (non)recognition. The feminist researcher CynthiaCockburn has helped the Cypriot women both in the formation of the group aswell as in securing funding from the British Council and Mama Cash.4 Since theembargo on crossings to and from the Line has been lifted, HAD members haveproposed the re-registration of their NGO in the Cyprus Republic so as to benefitfrom European Union funding privileges. This womens organisation aspires tobecome the first independent movement and aims to raise public consciousnesson the issues of gender equality and womens human rights, which it understandsto be as important as other national and political issues (Agathangelou, 2003).

The Work of the BWG

With the help of the three facilitators, the BMG worked first on a leading question:What contributes to pain and suffering in Cyprus through the eyes of women,what needs to be done and how can it be done?. The group used the specificmethod of interactive management (IM), which Dr Benjamin Broome, a Fulbrightscholar, introduced to different bi-communal citizens groups (Broome, 1998,2000). It is a computer-supported decision-making method. The group progressedthrough three stages of planning and design which included: (a) analysis of thecurrent situation, (b) goal setting/vision for the future and (c) development of acollaborative action agenda. Some basic assumptions guided us in our firstworkshop as, for example, the following: (a) ethnic communities areheterogeneous and contain many voices, including womens voices; (b) everywoman speaks as an individual rather than as a representative of her community,party or business; (c) debate about political positions is best left to the politicians;(d) the opportunity to engage in bi-communal dialogue is a privilege; and (e) weare not here to solve the Cyprus problem but create conditions for the solution.

The BWG was not able to meet as a whole for the first part of the workshopbecause no permission was given for the TC women to cross to the Ledra PalaceHotel in the buffer zone. The TC women often experienced this arbitrary decisionof the military authorities as both a violation of their right to meet the other, basedon the patriarchal assumption that the state, or male authority, can decide for itscitizens without giving any explanation, simply because it has claimed the powerto do so (Freire, 1970). The frustration and powerlessness felt by the whole groupwas immense. The BWG chose, however, to continue the workshop mono-communally at first and when permissions were granted they worked jointly.

The BWGs voices on the lead question reflected the complex and multilayeredfabric of the conflict and we noted how our gendered identities intersect withclass, ethnicity, sexuality and rural/urban modalities. This realisation was inopposition to the GC official view, which assumed that because of pastco-existence, as soon as the Turkish army withdraws the people in bothcommunities will have no problem coming together as they did in the past. Theobstacle is not only the presence of the Turkish army but, as we realised frommany inter-ethnic citizens contacts and conflict resolution training workshops, agreat deal of systematic work is needed to overcome past fears, hatred, suspicions,mistrust and decades-old alienation before we can claim any level of futurecooperation and co-existence.

The IM method allowed each participant to generate as many ideas as she hadin answering the lead question. The 11 TC women produced 82 factors/causes

338 M. Hadjipavlou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

that have contributed to pain and suffering and the 11 GCs produced 72. Theseresponses can be mapped into four broad categories which reflect the many layersof the conflict: (a) (social) psychological; (b) structural; (c) historical and political;and (d) philosophical. These factors were, sometimes, specific to GC women or toTC women, and were sometimes shared.

Once an idea was presented the group engaged in discussion about that specificfactor as it was defined and meant by the author of the idea, the purpose being toform a shared understanding and where possible reach a consensus. For instance,in a general discussion the majority of the GC and TC women connected the ideaof women and peace with the biological functions of childbearing andmotherhood and thus concluded that women are by nature more peace-lovingthan men. Thus the debate over nature or nurture arose. This assumption becamecomplicated when some other women in the group challenged this view, andsought an explanation as to why some men love peace and some womensupported and participated in war activities. The feminists in the group broughtup the role of gender socialisation and social expectations and gender stereotypesexplaining that women in a patriarchal society at times of conflict are turned intoobjects and promoters of the national cause and values, as articulated by themale-dominated system.

Previous research findings among GC women only, and more recently amongwomen in all Cypriot communities which I coordinated (Hadjipavlou, 2004),confirm this discussion in that many Cypriot women were unclear with regard tothe concepts of patriarchy, feminisms (still feminism carries negative connotationsin Cypriot society) and anti-militarism and connected peace with women only inan essentalising way. Discussions and debates on these concepts and issues arestill absent from both the school curriculum and the civil society. Due to this lackof gender consciousness and knowledge about feminisms as well as alternativeviews about how femininity and masculinity are constructed and exploited byethnic nationalisms and conflict cultures, a number of contradictions arose amongthe members of the BWG: on one hand, all the women in the BWG described thesocial organisation of their societies as patriarchal and hierarchical, but on theother hand, many (apart from four women) said they were not feminists and thatthe conflict affected everybody irrespective of gender. At first some did notquestion their role as mothers offering their sons to fight for the liberation of theirhomeland as a gender issue. It did not occur to them that they can challenge andresist such practices and expectationsso deeply had they internalised theirnational duty role (Anthias & Yuval-Davies, 1989). The discussion on the rest ofthe issues became more gender-focused and for many this constituted a newrevelation of a different worldview about gender and peace. What we learnedfrom this initial discussion was that Cypriot women who were exposed to feministtheories and gender analyses of social phenomena in their formal education wereable to inform and share with the rest of the BWG alternative viewpoints to theinternalised prevalent male view. The feminist women of the Group sensitised theothers to the fact that men were deciding both the national and internationalagendas on Cyprus and that women adopted these agendas as if they were theirown. Many admitted that as women we are not trained in Cyprus to challengeauthority.

After this initial introduction to a gendered understanding of the Cyprusconflict the BWG was invited to imagine a new construction of the self and acollectivity of the we, which would not be based on the traditional conceptions

Cypriot Womens Dialogue Across the Divide 339

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

of masculinity, femininity or gender constructions. Many women of the groupusing this new perspective probed into their own experiences and locatedknowledges outside the dominant hegemonic history as told by governing elitesin their communities. The gender lens perspective, a new tool for many, helpedthem to articulate alternative interpretations of the conflict and become the agentsof their own reality, recognising that their personal experience did matter. Thismental shift was not easy to maintain without being reminded constantly of theprocess and the new concepts.

I now turn to the conditions which the BWG articulated as factors thatcontributed to their suffering and pain on the island. I refer first to the social,psychological and philosophical factors, because these are usually the least to benoted and addressed in a divided society where power politics is the norm and theus and them dichotomy creates sharp boundaries.

Fear of Domination and Free ExpressionWho is the Other?

The socialpsychological factors relating to the construction of otherness, to theshaping of individual and collective national identities, to perceptions and beliefsystems and to victimhood and stereotyping are factors that not only hinder theresolution of the conflict but also can help us understand the deep-rootedness ofthe conflict and the exclusion of some groups such as women from the peaceprocess. One of the issues that all the TC women expressed strongly was their fearof being dominated by the GC majority and by Turkey, we feel like a sandwichbetween the two some said. This metaphor was indeed very powerful. Theyrelated personal stories of how they experienced the GCs, and what it felt likeliving for a decade (196374) under constant fear and exclusion from theprivileges that the international recognition of the Cyprus Republic provided foronly GCs until today. This reflects not only the arrogance of the dominant group,the failure of the Republic and nationalist ideologies, but also majority/minoritydynamics whereby often the dominant group not only claims to know what is bestfor the dominated, but often speaks on their behalf. As a result, some of the GCwomen were deeply touched and others felt some sense of guilt for what theircommunity did and still does. The TC women also criticised the Turkish militarypresence in the North and the impact this has on their individual and collectivefreedoms.

Some TC women also felt fear of expressing our true feelings contrary to officialnarratives because we would be ostracised. Thus a form of self-censorship wasimposed. Cypriot women (as do some men) tended to resort to silence, becausethose who spoke their mind were labelled traitors or unpatriotic. The TCwomen spoke about feeling disappointed at the lack of solidarity with, and theindifference shown, by the GC community at their tragedy as experienced in the196374 period when they felt like second-class citizens. The GC womenresponded by saying that they also feared Turkeys domination, military presenceand expansionist intentions in Cyprus. Both groups realised through facilitationthat the master narratives drew lines between them in an effort to essentialise theOther, which led to mutual victimhood.

For the TCs the Other in the pre-1974 period was the GCs, whereas for the GCsin the post 1974 period it was Turkey (making the TCs invisible). Some womenexpressed their difficulty in reconsidering established beliefs about the Otherand they explained this as being due to their attachment to ideas and belief

340 M. Hadjipavlou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

systems as being unchanged. Both groups admitted fear of opening up to theOther which we do not know. The tendency to homogenise the Other in conflictsituations emerged in these womens discussion. It was apparent that each ethnicgroup had different grievances but shared the common desire for acknowl-edgment of their pain.

The BWG discovered that the gendered view of history as developed by eachofficial side left outside their consciousness the existence of the Others story,which is why the need for otherness became an issue as well as the inclusionexclusion dynamics. Each group tried to inform the other and understand whyeach side silenced the reality of the Other. The TCs tried to make the GCs aware ofsome of the severe problems and violence they had been subjected to in the 1960s,and the GCs tried to make the TCs aware of their tragic condition in 1974. Theyacknowledged that the official male-dominated narratives silenced their owncommunitys contribution in causing their own sides tragedy. As their dialoguedeveloped and they shared pain and historical grievances, concepts such asapology, forgiveness and relational empathy were discussed as necessaryreconciliation tools. Both the process used and gradual trust-building releasedenergy and safe space to engage in exploring their multiple identities. This led theGC women to be frank and to admit to the prevalence of a Greek superioritycomplex and cultural arrogance, saying we, the Greeks have difficulty to acceptother cultures. And since we are the majority we believe Cyprus belongs to us.Statements such as these helped some TCs admit that we, as a minority play upour victimhood role and we expect others to take notice of us. This clarity in thegroup helped them move to the next, more creative phase of the workshop.

Both ethnic groups pointed out the privilege of being together and the newpossibilities these contacts created vis-a`-vis the unnaturalness in being forced tolive in one part of the island and keep fantasising about the other. This theyconnected to the fact that Cyprus is an island and it is difficult to escape from it ina psychological sense. Thus we are inter-dependent. But this ethnic division andthe Line was often experienced in a physical sense, as one TC woman vividlyexpressed it:

When I am with you, Greeks, I find my other half, which is missing.At the end of a workshop when I leave the Ledra Palace and each of uscrosses the check point to go to our homes in opposing sides I feel at thatmoment something really physical, a split within my body. Thegeographical proximity becomes irrelevant compared to the forces ofmilitarism and foreign occupations as this defines my relationship toyou, the other.

The BWG struggled in these discussions to locate its inner voice and strengths tomove beyond the practices of silencing, and public hegemonic histories andinstead create alternative feminist strategies such as empathy, apology and desirefor reconciliation.

Identity and Structural Conditions

The issue of identity in the Cyprus conflict has, for each side, been significant andcontested. Is the island Greek, or Turkish, or Cypriot, or European? Many mendied fighting for the Greekness or Turkishness of the island but none for theCypriotness. The imposed constitution in 1960 did not leave space for Cypriotness

Cypriot Womens Dialogue Across the Divide 341

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

and integrative institutions to develop; instead the majority/minority modelpermeated every aspect of life creating mistrust and separation. In the post-1974period many citizens groups started exploring the local cartography of strugglesand framed shared inter-ethnic desires and a vision of Cypriotness. The BWGchallenged the national dichotomy imposed on collective identities. My researchin 20023 on this issue has shown that despite the official propaganda on thereproduction and preservation of Greekness and or Turkishness, an over-whelming majority in all communities defines their collective identity as Cypriot.The majority of these were women who, connected with the land and thecommunity in a direct and concrete fashion, differed from the majority of menwho were exposed to the military and national discourses, as they have to carryout their military service for more than 2 years (Hadjipavlou, 2004). The BWGexpressed their concern about the future in a divided and highly militaristic islandwhere biased education and biased history leave no say to women to determineour future.

Since the late 1970s, due to the influx of Turks from Anatolia, the TC womenfeared losing the Cypriot part of their identity because they considered thesettlers to be less educated, less cultured and more religious. Thus TCs createdanother Other who, although from the same ethnic background, was viewed asdifferent and as not belonging to Cyprus. In a sense they behaved towards andtreated the Other Turks as they themselves were treated by the GCs in the past.The GC women viewed the settlers as a problem, too, but from a differentperspective. The settlers were given GC refugees homes and properties, whichwere illegally occupied by the Turkish military thus the settlers issue emergedas a shared concern, but for different reasons. This issue then opened up adiscussion on racism, the power of the military and how this fed the assumedpower of the TC leadership, which encouraged the mainland Turks to come tothe north to be used as a voting instrument so that the establishment remained inpower and weakened the opposition.

The GC women in the workshop felt that the overemphasis on the Greek part oftheir identity led to the exclusion of other aspects of their identities. Thus, for thepurpose of national unity the political male actors defined in an exclusive waywhat constitutes the imagined community as well as the nationalist project.Women were included in this as long as they served the national agenda of eachside, which included primary responsibility for reproduction and culturaltransmission of their respective communities. Some women in the BWG calledthis patriotism and love of ones country, while others called this a genderednationalist project, which they connected to the need to have enemies as thishelps each official side to refrain from taking its own share of responsibility in thecreation of the conflict. They also critically linked love for our country to the viewthat men are socialised to be the protectors and liberators of their nation, whilewomen are there to reproduce the nation and transmit to their children thenational ideology.

TC and GC women viewed the patriarchal structure of social organisation, theabsence of women from decision-making bodies and the peace processes as largeobstacles to the functioning of true, representative and participatory democracy inCyprus. They spoke about . . . insufficient levels of democracy in bothcommunities and the predominance of the national problem hindering womensseparate space to articulate womens issues. In other words, democracy individed societies is contingent upon the ethnic nationalist agenda, setting the

342 M. Hadjipavlou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

criteria of what not to say or reveal to the enemy, thus imposing covertcensorship. Both GC and TC women also agreed that the lack of structures to getto know each others culture, ways of living, and education reinforced thecommunication embargo and the restrictive movement of ideas as additionalfactors to serve adversarial politics.

Both education systems, according to the BWG, are structured to support thepatriarchal mentality and socialisation of youth in the conflict; the national historyon each side emphasises the atrocities committed by the other against them. The GCwomen in the group noted the prevalence of religious and social prejudices againstinter-marriages as these were, until recently, included in the Cyprus constitution.5

Another mutual concern was voiced regarding the gendered division of spaceinto private and public. In both communities the BWG agreed women are absentfrom key policy-making centres of power so they are not allowed to voice theirconcerns and views unless they behave like men or do as men say. Thus thepolitics of space builds a certain type of masculinity and femininity wherebyCypriot men are viewed as pragmatic, tough, assertive and emotionally strongand thus fit for public life whereas women are viewed as emotional, home carersand willing to give in, or in paying attention to the wrong things, thus fit only forthe private sphere. Many women in the group also spoke about the increase instructural and domestic violence and felt such issues had been social taboos a fewyears back, in that they were not talked about publicly as were other issuesrelating to reproductive rights, abortion and contraceptives. They supported theview that if more women were present in decision-making centres and in publiclife they would support the establishment of appropriate services to address thethesis that the personal is political, and so their experience of domestic violencewould be addressed as a public, political issue. The lack of such sensitisationand services they again related to the perpetuation of the conflict which hasmarginalised womens social issues.

Historical/Political Obstacles

The role of third parties and outside interferences were instrumental in shapingthe relationships within and between the two communities and politics in general.Hence the BWG had no difficulty identifying this factor. They went further,however, than the national narrative, which attributes blame only to the outsideinterference factor. They looked at the domestic factor as well pointing out therole of the extremists and nationalists in each community, the role of leadershipand how the need for domination of the TCs by the GCs led to the creation of theGreen Line. This analysis challenged the dichotomy of us and them andintroduced a conflict resolution discourse that allowed perspective taking as wellas getting away from the blame the other model. An acknowledgement of thestruggle [about] who is going to own and rule the island led to the discussionabout domination, nationalism and inequality in power and economicdevelopment between the communities. The GC women pointed out that theGreek words for fanaticism and nationalism are masculine whereas peace, loveand equality are feminine in an effort to elicit the male dominated culture ofexclusion and violence in their community. The BWG believed that due to the lackof internal cohesion and inter-communal solidarity the Cypriots failed to preventharmful interference from outside powers thus we need to take our ownresponsibility.

Cypriot Womens Dialogue Across the Divide 343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

In conflict resolution workshops the issue of trust both inside the room andoutside was significant in helping participants move beyond confrontational,gendered politics. The BWG identified the loss of trust for decades in each otherand the development of incompatible goals and expectations as causes ofalienation. The desire for building alliances across ethnic divides was expressed asnot yet an easy task to accomplish across civil society.

We also noted some intra-group differences as these emerged from time to timein the way some women projected their level of thinking and identity vis-a`-vis theother. For instance, some of the GCs who had university education were morereflective at times on issues of self-criticism, vulnerabilities and abstractions: Wehave deep fears in accepting the others truth and we are unaware of ones ownidentity as human beings. There is unawareness of who I am . . .. This level ofabstraction or transcendence was too much for some TC women, who werestruggling with basic, concrete needs such as employment, safety and visibilityand they did challenge these GC women. This was not surprising in view of the factthat these GC women belonged to the dominant and more privileged ethnic groupwhich, because of international recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, have to alarge extent resolved their basic needs for economic survival (low unemploymentrate and four times higher per capita income than that of the TCs) and they can thusafford to move to higher level needs and reflection. This discussion revealed notonly the ethnic difference but also class issues, and reminded the privileged groupto be more aware and sensitive to other identity differences.

A serious concern was voiced regarding the emphasis both communities put ontheir differences, we always emphasise differences and not enough attention tosimilarities and avoid mention of our shared positive past. Each groupunderstands the past differently. The TCs sought acknowledgement by thedominant group of their past grievances and violences inflicted on them, whichstill remain unaddressed, whereas the GC women wanted to forget that past andmove on. The past, these women believed, became a tool for male politicians andnationalists in each community to promote their politically incompatible positionsonto the solution of the conflict and to justify the Line. The GC women were openlycritical of how the Republic of Cyprus uses military institutions to promote theirconception of security and defence and in a covert way intimidating citizens frombeing critical about the high defence budget and militarisation. For these womensecurity meant building trust and cooperation at both official and unofficial levelsand also economic wellbeing. They referred to human security needs.

In general the BWG were able, over time, to form a new community with a deepawareness of the impact of patriarchy and of the conflict on their personal andcollective lives. They promoted the practice of conflict resolution workshops, ofdialogue, of direct personal contacts, use of their personal stories to construct newknowledges and the ideology of rapprochement. They supported the need for agender understanding of the conflict, history and power as tools and practices tohelp bring about a culture for a solution in which womens presence and voiceswill be accounted for.

I believe the BWG laid the foundation for the creation of HAD because somemembers of this organisation were participants in the BWG until 1997 when, dueto political obstacles and the military practice of no permissions, the group wasprevented from meeting thereafter. This demonstrates how the work of womenin divided societies becomes contingent upon politicians arbitrariness who haveinscribed the Line on the Cypriot landscape in the first instance.

344 M. Hadjipavlou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

HAD

In discussing the role of HAD I use data from a meeting/symposium held in 2003,at which I was a participant and note-taker. The meeting took place in a restaurantacross the dividing Line in the Turkish Quarter of the walled city of Nicosia(in Cyprus we combine work with food and drink. It is a usual practice in ourconducting a symposium!). Eighteen members attended: nine TCs and nine GCsof different ages and class backgrounds. At the time of our symposium, at theofficial political context the Annan Plan had been submitted to the leadership ofboth communities. These women had read parts of the Plan and public discussion,especially in the TC community, was quite extensive.

The underlying shared worldview of HAD is we all believe in the values ofdemocracy, which for many of us means an open market of ideas and freedom ofspeech, gender equality and equal access to resources and opportunities and weall aspire to live in a united country. Moreover,

We have come together to form a unitary organization, disregarding, asfar as possible, differences of ethnic or national identity, and evengeographical location . . . We know that to cooperate effectively we musttake account of the inequalities between us and inevitable differences inthe needs we prioritise, deriving from our different past experiences anddifferent realities today. (www.handsacrossthedivide.org)

The question that the group worked on at the symposium was: why do I as awoman want a solution?. The facilitative process, which Cynthia Cockburn led,was as follows: women worked in pairs brainstorming on the leading question.Then each had to choose one main reason for wanting a solution. All theanswers were recorded on flipcharts and became working material for thesecond phase of the workshop the following week. Here are some examples,which indicate the multilayered aspect of the conflict, as well as womens desiresfor change:

A future, thats what I want. I want all the things that are suppressednow, to be liberated, including gender. I want to feel free to plan ahead,and move on . . . I want to live in a house that I know is my own . . . I wantthe barbed wire and barrels, and sand bags out of my garden . . . I want asolution so as to have normalisation of space and unblocking of energies.(HAD meeting, 2003)

The women of HAD further voiced concerns and needs from a feministunderstanding of the solution and located their personal desires as beingpolitical unlike the way as it is often projected in mainstream male politicswhich deal with the solution in a legalistic and exclusionary way, not close tothe reality of most of the polity. The women did not simply want an agreementon paper. They longed for a change in mentality, a new thinking and aconstructive way of looking at the future, including through a gender lens.They proposed explicitly: We want particular attention to be given to thepractical implementation of legislative provisions on gender, so that equalitydoes not remain a mere principle, but it is achieved in practice . . . all newpolicies should be screened and evaluated for their gender implications beforethey are introduced . . . and their gender effects should be monitored duringimplementation.

Cypriot Womens Dialogue Across the Divide 345

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

HAD members also felt strongly about the Cypriot part of their identity, as didthe BWG, but they also went beyond the ethnic part (GC or TC) to demandopportunities to develop as women and as citizens.

As women [we] also want respect from each other in a society that will befully democratic. We want an electoral system that guarantees womennumerical parity with men in parliament and on all decision-makingbodies.

I want a solution urgently because I want my identity. . . my Cypriotidentity. I want to gain my identity rid of the oppression I feel now.Women could change a lot in society if there were opportunities forwomen to develop. I want to be sure of having equal rights as a womanand as a person.

From the expressed desires of these women it is obvious that a solution to thepolitical problem is not only urgent but that it will also open up spaces forwomens development and participatory democracy. Women of HAD strugglewith their desire to broaden the implications of what a Cyprus solution entailswhich to them means opportunities to be part of the solution.

Security for the women of HAD was defined beyond armies and weapons.It meant human relationships, doing away with dividing lines in order for newarrangements to be put in place without checkpoints and passports or identitycards to cross to and from. More than the GC members, the TC members wereconcerned with their childrens future and wanting the settlers to leave as well ashave the ability to present ourselves to the outside world as one country. For theGC, women the freedom of movement on the whole of the island was moreimportant and the need for security and respect. I want a land without borders, asingle country with respect, gender equality and security. For the TCs theprospect of Cyprus joining the European Union created a hope, because EU lawsmay help us solve some of the problems of inequality we face in a patriarchalsociety and offer us opportunities to work elsewhere as equals. Peace for thewomen of HAD meant demilitarisation and not only the withdrawal of foreigntroops, but a change in the mindset about the Other: I want to start thinkingpositive, new thoughts about the Other. Most of the desires of these women werefuture-orientated and longed for a peaceful environment, a culture of peace. Thenationalist propaganda was bankrupt, they believed. Above all, we want asolution in order to give us a future, to unlock our energies so that we can allcontribute to change as a society. I believe men are suffering too, they are victimsof the patriarchal system as well.

The women of HAD were much more aware of their role as social agents thanwere the members of BWG, which shows a further development in genderawareness work. They had very concrete ideas as to what the content of thesolution of the Cyprus conflict should be like and wanted new structures andinstitutions to address, among other issues, gender inequality and violenceagainst women: As women we wish to see the post of a gender ombudspersoncreated, an office to which individuals suffering from discrimination on groundsof gender, marital status, etc.[,] may appeal for redress. The idea for theestablishment of a Ministry of Equality was put forward.

These Cypriot womens desires, as expressed here, shed light on what is lackingin the politics of the country as a whole and how the national issue, as defined

346 M. Hadjipavlou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

by a patriarchal elite, has completely ignored these multiple inter-subjectiverealities of womens perspectives and needs. It is a clear example of the genderednature of peace and conflicta dimension that is not included in the political orformal peace agendas. Women in Cyprus are still absent from the peacenegotiations. This is in contravention to the UN Security Council Resolution 1325,which has been signed by Cyprus, calling upon states to include women at thepeace table so that their perspectives, experiences and concerns are legitimatedand included in a future solution. The Cypriot women in this organisation notedsome of the omissions of democracy, such as limitations on womens humanrights, continuation of gender inequalities and the invisibility of womensagendas and needs. The above desires also reveal the multiple levels of realitywomen experience and the efforts needed to employ feminist understandings andgender perspectives that take into account the realities of both men and women.Thus the inclusion of women of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds livingin the same space of Cyprus could further help to build alliances and cross-sectioncoalitions to affect a peace agreement.

Conclusion

From the Cypriot womens experiences as I have presented them in the BWG andHAD, we note that to employ a feminist and gender perspective in the analysis ofthe conflict is supported by the use of conflict resolution processes, methods andtools. The use of both levels of analysis in the context of Cypriot women and theirexperience of the Line across the Divide has encouraged both organisations toproduce in a safe and open environment their concerns, needs, grievances,contradictions and desires for the future. Furthermore, the feminist strategies andconflict resolution processes have revealed these womens differences, both intra-and inter-communally, with regard to freedom of expression, identity issues,structural conditions, socialpsychological and political obstacles as these emergein a divided, patriarchal and militaristic environment. The fact that certain womenin the groups were themselves feminists and had been exposed in their formaleducation to Womens Studies helped the others appreciate alternative worldviewsabout nationalist constructions of identity, as well as gender constructions, and tochallenge the role of patriarchy and nationalisms in defining the levels ofdevelopment for men and women in conflict societies. Thus Cyprus is still sufferingnot only from a patriarchal order of things but also from nationalism andmilitarism. Militarised masculinity is not the only form of masculinity and thesewomen hoped that with a solution and a new peace structure, other forms ofmanhood for men and boys would be constructed. Values shared among feministsand conflict resolvers, such as tolerance, understanding, apology, cooperation,empathy, acknowledging the others pain and reality became part of these womenspeace-building efforts. High on their agenda, they placed the need for gender forequality and fulfilment of basic human rights. The culture these women promotedwas focused more on needs than on political positions or static, legalistic principlesthat characterise the realist power-politics view of solving political conflicts.

A view that all women shared was the recognition that the Cyprus conflict has,for over 30 years, dominated the public discourse and the lives of all its citizens.In effect this undermined the significance of social issues, including womensissues. In conflict cultures there is a tendency to homogenise communities, failingto acknowledge their complexity, and thus prolonging misperceptions, stereotypes

Cypriot Womens Dialogue Across the Divide 347

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

and misunderstandings between and among conflicting parties (Hadjipavlou,2003). In this article I have tried to show the heterogeneity and multiple voices ofwomen within and across communities. In Cyprus, we still lack extensive researchto understand womens realities and what women really want and need. Thismicro-level research will be useful to both women and policy makers as well as tothird parties involved in peace negotiations. These womens experiences andvoices could produce new and significant knowledges and information whichshould be taken into account in a future Cyprus. This will build further bridgesand strengthen democratic principles, such as gender equality and the need forotherness which in the context of Cyprus means inclusion of all other Others andno need for permissions to cross to and from to met the Other.

My personal journey as a Greek Cypriot to peace-building and the choices I havemade has convinced me that there is no other way to question simplistic,monolithic, patriarchal understandings of national interest and nationalsecurity other than experiencing the Other, the perceived enemy and realisingthat the enemy has been socialised in the same way as myself. We were bothprojects of ethnic nationalisms. I also learnt that a different education in feminism,gender studies and conflict resolution can help us question and overcome sociallyconstructed enemy images and gender stereotypes. We can even use this reflectivelearning to enhance our own insights into the victimperpetrator mentality andacknowledge that the perpetrator is as much a victim as is the victim a perpetrator.The Cypriot womens daily psychological and political suffocation within theparameters of multiple Lines until today is a testament to the continuing power ofmilitarism and ethnic nationalisms, despite the fact that the Republic of Cyprushas become a member of the European Union. These conditions need to changeurgently, as the Cypriot women in the BWG and HAD have shown us. There is awillingness and ability to make it happen. As Sharoni (1995) has reminded us,every time a woman explains how her government is trying to control her fears,her hopes and her labour such a theory is made (p. 89); that is, a feminist theoryon international conflict and international relations. More micro-level studies ongender and conflict are needed in order to understand better the relationship andmultiple experiences of the men and women in the construction of a peace culturewhere the dichotomy of self and Other, subject and object, can be eliminated.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to the four anonymous reviewers for theirvery constructive suggestions and support as well as to Linda Peake, managingeditor of GPC for her encouragement and suggestions and to Leeann Townsend,the editorial assistant for helping with corrections to the text. Also many thanks tomy colleagues at the University of Cyprus, Maria Margaroni and Fabienne Baider,for their initial support in reading the first draft of this paper which I presented atthe international conference on The Languages of Gender held at the universityof Cyprus, 2003. I bear full responsibility for the final text.

Notes

1. By masculinist policies I mean an androcentric understanding of the conflict which is divisive intous and them and one of whose many tasks is that of the construction of the enemy that leads to theperpetuation of the conflict.

348 M. Hadjipavlou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

2. I remember, after an inter-ethnic encounter in the buffer zone, that the moment of separation wasexperienced by many of us as a form of violence on our bodies and we felt stiff and de-energised atthe realisation of how real this Line was and still is, affecting us not only psychologically but in aphysical sense too.

3. The language used in many bi-communal workshops and encounters was and still is English. Since2003 many started learning each others language

4. Many more details about HAD can be found in Cockburns newly published book The Line, 2004.5. Due to the accession of Cyprus to the European Union, such anachronistic and undemocratic

provisions became obsolete after 1 May 2004.

References

Agathangelou, Anna M. (2003) Envisioning a Feminist Global Society, Cypriot Women, Civil Society

and Social Change, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 57 July, pp. 290299.

Andric-Ruzicic, Duska (1997) Womens Self-Organizing in Bosnia: How we felt when supplying

psychoanalytical help to traumatized women, in: Biljana Kasic (Ed.) Women and the Politics of Peace,

pp. 1929 (Zagreb, Center for Womens Studies).

Anthias, Floya & Yuval-Davis, Nina (Eds) (1989) Woman-Nation-State (London, Macmillan).

Attalides, Michael (1979) Cyprus: nationalism and international politics (Edinburgh, Q Press Limited).

Brock-Utne, Birgit (1985) Educating for Peace: a feminist perspective (New York, Pergamon).

Broome, Benjamin (1998) Overview of Conflict Resolution activities in Cyprus. Their contribution to the

peace process. The Cyprus Review, 10(1), pp. 4767.

Broome, Benja (2000) Designing a Collective Approach to Peace: Interactive design and problem-

solving workshops with Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities in Cyprus, International

Negotiation, 2, pp. 381407.

Bryant, Rebecca (1998) Education in Honor: Patriotism and the schools of Cyprus, in: Vaggelis

Calotychos (Ed.) Cyprus and its People: Nation, Identity, and Experience in an Unimaginable Community,

19551997, pp. 5368 (Boulder, CO, Westview Press).

Burton, W. John (Ed.) (1990) Conflict: Human needs theory (New York, St Martins Press).

Cockburn, Cynthia (1998) The Space between Us: Negotiating gender and national identities (London & New

York, Zed Books).

Cockburn, Cynthia (2004) The Line Women, Partition and the Gender Order in Cyprus (London & New

York, Zed Books).

Coomeraswamy, Radhika (2001) Womens Leadership, Gender and Peace, in: S. Naraghi-Anderlini

(Ed.) Gender and Peace, pp. 1017 (USA, Ford Foundation).

Enloe, Cynthia (1989) Beaches and Bases: Making feminist sense of international politics (Berkeley,

University of California Press).

Enloe, Cynthia (2000) Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing womens lives (Berkeley,

University of California Press).

Freire, Paulo (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, Continuum).

Golan, Daphna (1997) Palestinian and Israeli Women of the Jerusalem Link: On the road to peace!, in: Biljana

Kasic (Ed.) Women and the Politics of Peace, pp. 5359 (Zagreb, Centre for Womens Studies).

Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, Maria (1987) Identity Conflict in Divided Societies: The case of Cyprus,

unpublished PhD thesis, Boston University.

Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, Maria (1998) Different Relationships to the Land: Personal narratives, political

implications and future possibilities, in: Vaggelis Calotychos (Ed.) Cyprus and its People, Nation,

Identity, and Experience in an Unimaginable Community 19551997, pp. 251277 (Boulder CO,

Westview Press).

Hadjipavlou, Maria (2002) Cyprus: A partnership between conflict resolution and peace education,

in: G. Salamon & B. Nevo (Eds) Peace Education, The concept, principles and practices around the world,

pp. 193208 (Mahwah, New Jersey, London, Lawrence Erlaum Associates).

Hadjipavlou, Maria (2003) Inter-ethnic Stereotypes, Neighbourliness, Separation: Paradoxes and

challenges in Cyprus, Journal of Mediterranean Studies, 13(2), pp. 281318.

Hadjipavlou, Maria (2004) Women in the Cypriot Communities (Nicosia, PrintWays).

Harding, Sandra (1986) The Science Question of Feminism (Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press).

Hill, Sir George (1952) History of Cyprus, vol. IV (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

Kelman, Herbert (1993) Coalitions Cross Conflict Lines: The interplay of conflicts within and between

the Israeli and Palestinian communities, in: J. Simpson & S. Worchel (Eds) Conflict between Peoples and

People, pp. 236258. (Chicago, Nelson Hall).

Cypriot Womens Dialogue Across the Divide 349

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

Kizilyurek, Nyazi (2002) Modernity, Nationalism and the Perspectives of a Cypriot Union, CahiersdEtudes sur la Mediterranean, 34, JulyDecember, pp. 211229.

Koumoulides, John (1974) Cyprus and the Greek War of Independence, 18211829 (Guildford and London,Billing and Sons Limited).

Kyriakides, Stanley (1968) Cyprus: Constitutionalism and crisis government (Philadelphia, University ofPennsylvania Press).

Lentin, Ronit (1997) Women, War and Peace in a Culture of Violence: The Middle East and NorthernIreland, in: Biljana Kasic (Ed.) Women and the Politics of Peace, pp. 6475 (Zagreb, Centre for WomensStudies).

McCann, Ann (1997) The Emergence of a Womens Political Movement in Northern Ireland, in: BiljanaKasic (Ed.) Women and the Politics of Peace, pp. 3947 (Zagreb, Centre for Womens Studies).

Nedjatigil, Zaim, M. (1977) Cyprus Constitutional Proposals and Developments (TRNC Nicosia, Cyprus,State Printing).

Patrick, Ronald (1976) Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict (19631971) (Canada, Department ofGeography, University of Waterloo).

Pollis, Adamantia (1973) Intergroup Conflict and British Colonial Policy: The case of Cyprus.Comparative Politics 5(4), pp. 575599.

Pollis, Adamantia (1996) The Social Construction of Ethnicity and Nationality: The case of Cyprus,Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 2(1), pp. 6790.

Salih, Imbrhim (1968) Cyprus: An analysis of Cypriot political discord (New York, Theo Gaus Sons).Senjak, Marijana (1997) Womens Self-Organizing in Bosnia: How we felt when supplying

psychological help to traumatized women, in: Biljana Kasic (Ed.) Women and the Politics of Peace,pp. 2931 (Zagreb, Centre for Womens Studies).

Sharoni, Simona (1995) Gender and the IsraeliPalestinian Conflict (Syracuse, Syracuse University Press).Sherif, Muzafer, Harvey, O.J., Hood, William, Sherif, C.W. & White, John, (1961) Intergroup Conflict andCooperation: The robbers cave experiment (Norman, University of Oklahoma Press).

Sylvester, Christine (1989) Patriarchy, Peace and Women Warriors, in: LindaRennie Forcey (Ed.) Peace,Meanings, Politics, Strategies, pp. 90122 (New York, Westport, Connecticut, London, Praeger).

Tickner, J. Ann (2001) Womens Leadership, Gender and Peace, in: S. Naraghi Anderlini (Ed.) Genderand Peace, pp. 3041 (Ford Foundation).

Volkan, Vamik (1979) Cyprus: War and adaptation. A psychoanalytic history of two ethnic groups in conflict(Charlottesville, VA, The University Press of Virginia).

Yashin, Mehmet (2000) Dont Go Back to Kyrenia. Translated by Taner Baybar (Middlesex, MiddlesexUniversity Press, World Literature Series).

ABSTRACT TRANSLATION

No Permiso para cruzar: Dialogo de mujeres Chipriotas a

traves de la linea

Resumen Mucha de la atencion erudito han fijado en el estudio del aspecto degenero de los conflictos etno-nacional para entender las experiencias de mujeres yhombres en una situacion de conflicto y hasta que punto determinan estasexperiencias los diferentes clases de intervenciones para hacer y construir la paz.Son las experiencias de mujeres diferentes que las de hombres? Tienen mujeresuna voz diferente que los discursos dominantes que producido por el sistemapatriarcal? En sociedades en conflicto, responden mujeres diferente que hombresal militarismo y la violacion de derechos humanos? Son las necesidades demujeres para identidad y paz diferente dependiendo en sus grupos etno-religiosas? Son diferentes sus necesidades que las de hombres? Este artculointenta de responder a dichas preguntas enfocando las interpretaciones feministasdel conflicto in Cipres. La conexion principal que propone este artculo es quegenero es un elemento importante para tomar en cuenta cuando el proceso de paz

350 M. Hadjipavlou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

se realiza en sociedades en conflicto. Haciendo uso de un analisis de data queviene de talleres con mujeres de diferentes grupos etnicos los que participo elautor como participante observadora y facilitadora. El analisis muestra que lasvoces y experiencias de mujeres chipriotas griegas y turcas son diversas ymultiples. Hombres y mujeres son socializados in el mismo paradigmasnacionalistas, lo que pueda explicar como en las etapas iniciales del proceso dedialogo los dos grupos de mujeres tendieron a reproducir discursos oficiales. Susexperiencias propias y voces diferenciados empiezan solo despues de unacomprension de genero y el conflicto se introducan y se instituan confianza y lacapacidad de resolucion de conflictos. Llamando la atencion al cambio gradual deperspectivas en el contexto de talleres inter-etnicos, el artculo concluyeargumentando que el dialogo de mujeres puede desafiar la omnipotencia delestado y puede abrir espacio nuevo en lo que perspectivas diversas y confianzamutual pueden surgir.

Cypriot Womens Dialogue Across the Divide 351

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

Breached Bodies and Home Invasions: Horrific

representations of the feminized body and home

MARCIA ENGLANDDepartment of Geography, University of Kentucky, KY, USA

Abstract This article addresses abject representations of the feminized body and home.Abjection plays a key role in the creation of ambiguity and unease, encompassing theparadoxes of transgression, which is key to the critical examination of social relations andconstructions. I conduct an investigation of portrayals of abject spaces in two sites, thebody and the home, which are analyzed through three films: I Walked with a Zombie(1943), Evil Dead II (1987) and The Others (2001). In my analysis, I show how thesefilms repeatedly portray feminized bodies and homes that, when transgressive, are seen asabject until order is re-established at the conclusion of the film. In these horror texts,boundaries dissolve and create potentially progressive moments which can disturbgendered norms and binaries, but ultimately, the boundaries are reified and re-normed,reinscribing patriarchal gender codings of space.

Introduction

The relationship between feminism andhorror films is often a complicated one thatis embroiled in paradox. As a feminist and horror film lover, I frequently findmyself in a contradictory position. Often, horror films can be read in twoways: oneway that upholds patriarchal binaries, and another way that shows theemancipatory possibilities of transgressing those dualisms. This article investi-gates three horror films, Alejandro Amenabars The Others (2001), SamRaimis EvilDead II (1987) and Jacques Tourneurs I Walked with a Zombie (1943), that exemplifythis ambivalent association.1 Using the particularly gender-coded geographicalsites of the body and the home, I will highlight the paradoxical relationshipbetween feminism andhorror, arguing thatwhile the potential for progressionmayexist, ultimately these films strengthenthrough the mobilization of discourses ofabjectionrather than undermine patriarchal gender codings of space.Horror texts have long been criticized for their objectification ofwomen and their

misogynistic overtones. Many feminists have taken issue with the sexuallyembedded violent nature of many horror films (e.g. virginity is a life-savingcharacteristic, whereas any formof sexual activity is a virtual death sentence) or thealmost pornographic feel of many slasher films, where sexual repression is actedout on women through the mutilation of their bodies. While these arguments most

Correspondence: Marcia England, Department of Geography, University of Kentucky, 1457Patterson Office Tower, Lexington, KY, USA. E-mail: England@uky.edu

Gender, Place and CultureVol. 13, No. 4, pp. 353363, August 2006

ISSN 0966-369X print/ISSN 1360-0524 online/06/040353-11 q 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09663690600808452

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

ontif

icia U

nivers

idad J

averi

a] at

20:18

30 Ju

ne 20

12

definitely have merit, a number of feminist media scholars who work on horrorfilms argue that horror films help to destabilize gender roles (Schoell, 1985; Clover,1993; Sobchack, 1996; Pinedo, 1997). They argue that constructions of femininity arereworked through the depiction of a female protagonist, orwhat Clover (1992) callsthe Final Girl. The Final Girl takes action and defeats the killer/monster at the endof the film. She is the heroine of the film, not the victim. Schoell (1985) states, Scenesin which women whimper helplessly and do nothing to defend themselves areridiculed by the audience, who find it hard to believe that anyonemale orfemalewould simply allow someone to kill them with nary a protest (quoted inClover, 1994, p. 36). Yet often it is the Final Girl who restores the patriarchal binariesto regain order at the conclusion of the film.By defeating the killer, the Final Girl returns society back to its patriarchal state,

often unchanged by the destabilization of binaries that occurred within the film.According to Wood and Lippe (1979), the repression of ideologies that runcontrary to the patriarchal family institution is central to horror films. As Woodstates, the true subject of the horror genre is the struggle for recognition of all thatour civilization represses or oppresses (quoted in Grant, 1996, p. 2). Whileultimately those conventions are restored once the killer/monster is defeated,Berenstein (1996) notes that gender conventions can be disturbed due to thepresence or interference of the monster, stating:

It is as if the fiends toying with . . . elements that usually remain separate,such as male and female gender traits, force or invite human charactersto cross boundaries as well . . . it is also a generic space in which humancharacters, male and female, behave monstrously and transgress thesocial rules and roles that usually confine them. (p. 5)

My methodological approach to these three films is to discuss them as film textsrather than as genre pieces, although they do fit many characteristics of both theclassic and postmodern horror genres.2 This approach provides for flexibilitywithin my analysis and does not constrain me to discuss the films in the light ofconventional guidelines outlined by the genre; and it allows me to ask twoprimary questions: what narratives of the body and home do these horror filmsexhibit, and what can these narratives tell us about the way society conceptualizesthe two sites? While these films cannot be viewed as a substitute for the real worlddue to their fantastic nature, I take them as empirical examples of socialconstructions of the feminized body and home, for as Deutsche (1991, p. 18)argues, . . . representations are not objects at all, but social relations, themselvesproductive of meaning and subjectivity (quoted in Cresswell & Dixon, 2002, p. 4).

Horrific Abjection

Grosz (1994, p. 192) states that the abject is what of the body falls away from itwhile remaining irreducible to the subject/object and inside/outside oppositions.The abject necessarily partakes of both polarized terms, but cannot clearly beidentified with either. Within horror films, abjection plays a role in the creationof feelings of horror, which are caused by ambiguity,