• Culture
• Blood Revenge
  

The Mediators

The primary mediators of any conflict among the Abkhazians have always been respected elders, usually males, and ordinarily those around 50 and older. Age in that culture with an unusually high percentage of long-lived people is associated with wisdom (Benet 1974; Garb 1987). The formal mediation institutions are the councils of elders that function only when called upon to settle a conflict. However, any elders, not necessarily serving on a council, may be asked to mediate. They may even be relatives of the conflicting parties, if the dispute is not major. Several mediators are usually called in, the more the better, and preferably those who live a good distance from the disputants or are not among the interested parties.

In the Assembly elders also play an important role. From its outset the Assembly instituted a Council of Elders in addition to its Coordinating Committee. This is because elders are mediators in all these cultures, and were instrumental in organizing the Assembly. Even before the Assembly was founded, the elders of the various groups played key roles in the recent tensions that have arisen, for instance, between the Ossetians and the Ingush over disputed territory. And the elders of the Chechen, Karachay, Ingush, and Adyghey, to name just a few groups, were consulted by their youth who wanted to help the Abkhazians during the armed clashes with the Georgians in July 1989. In fact, it was during and right after these events that the idea for the Assembly was conceived.

Councils of Elders among the Ingush are influential and it is to their credit that the conflict with the Ossetians did not get completely out of control, despite the high passions. According to informants, the Ingush youth wanted to fight the Ossetians for the territory in dispute, but the elders held them back.

It is noteworthy that while the Assembly had a Council of Elders, the Abkhazian People's Front did not. Sergey Shamba, the head of the Abkhazian People's Front explained to me that "In these political issues the elders just don't have any influence, or very little."

Women in Abkhazia, as well as among other Caucasian peoples, have traditionally played an important peacemaking role. Throughout the Caucasus a woman could instantly stop a fight by throwing her scarf between the combatants. In some of these cultures, those least affected by Islam, women were active in mediating and major decision-making. This has always been the case in Abkhazia, where women belong to councils of elders and can be asked to mediate conflicts. Women, however, are usually a minority in these councils and policy-making bodies, but when they do participate they are especially highly regarded. As one male informant explained, "For a man it's almost enough for him to have lived long to serve as a mediator, but if a woman is involved it means she is a person of particular wisdom."

Women are not always regarded as peacemakers. Both men and women informants often pointed out that women can also fan a conflict and impede mediation. Some made a distinction between young women and older women, claiming that older women tend to be peacemakers, whereas young women are inclined to be more fiesty. "Elderly Abkhazian women would rather have a bad peace than a good war," said an elderly Abkhazian woman. Dmitry Smyr, chairman of the council of elders of a small Abkhazian town, Novy Afon, and an experienced mediator, said that he has seen cases when women family members are the active avengers in a feud and claim that they had to do the job because the men would not. One man told me that during the July 1989 riots, "The women stood in the front lines in some places. They picked up whatever they could use as weapons--sticks, or anything else. They raised everyone's spirits. Women were sometimes more decisive than men."

It appears that the only women who participated in the early stages of the Assembly were Abkhazians. The Abkhazian organizers made a conscious effort to include their women. The most prominent among the women was Tamara Shakryl who was well received by the North Caucasians. The Abkhazians explained that because of the deeper influence of Islam among many of the North Caucasus peoples women did not play a decision-making role in these societies.

Mediators must have certain qualities. Mediators are sought out who are "distant" from the conflict, either in terms of living outside the neighborhood of the conflicting parties, or having no stake in the outcome. This is seen as ensuring the mediator's objective analysis. A good mediator is regarded as being wise and knowledgeable about traditions; they are influential people and eloquent speakers.

In the Assembly the Abkhazians took credit for much of the conflict mediation. They claimed that this was a traditional function that they had always enjoyed historically among these peoples. Lakoba explained how this role developed: "We always lived by the sea, at the crossroads of culture, communication." Gennady Alamiya, an Abkhazian organizer of the Assembly, added: "We have always coexisted with different peoples and different cultures. In the North Caucasus they were always surrounded by other Caucasian peoples, and only relatively recently by Russian Cossacks. But we lived with Greeks, Romans, Russians, Armenians, Georgians, Megrels, Svans. In Dioskuria we had to have thirty interpreters for the different peoples who lived here. Also, never in history did the Abkhazians sell out the Caucasus. Everyone knows that."

We must also remember that Abkhazians always lived far away from these related peoples, so they were seldom involved in the conflicts that developed between close neighbors. This seems to hold true today. An Abkhazian graduate student living in a Moscow dormitory said that graduate students from different North Caucasian groups would come to him often to complain about each other. Each would say that the Abkhazians are like their own people, not whoever the rivals were, and that this is why they trusted my informant and other Abkhazians. North Caucasians had occasion to steal each other's livestock and seize land, but no such conflicts arose with the Abkhazians because they did not share borders with any of these people.

Other members of the Assembly also mediate, depending on the conflict. For instance, the Chechens attempted in the Assembly's first year of existence to mediate between the Abkhazians and Georgians.

The following reflects the typical statements I heard about the desirable qualities of mediators: "He was the ideal mediator because of his personal qualities. Each side knew him to be objective, not a politician. A good mediator is someone who is respected by both sides and is untainted, not hypocritical."

Sincerity was a quality stressed by the Abkhazian organizers of the Assembly. They see this as an all-Caucasus approach rather than purely Abkhazian. Alamiya made these comments about this approach: "I've spent the last year and a half in the North Caucasus more than at home. What have I noticed? The main thing is to be sincere. If you're just even slightly devious, especially with elders, it'll be noticed." For instance, he said it was tempting sometimes to stress that Abkhazians were Muslims, like the peoples of the North Caucasus, in order to win favor with the Assembly members, even though large numbers of Abkhazians are Christians, including the key Abkhazian organizers of the Assembly. Alamiya said that was a recipe for disaster: "We can't play politics in the North Caucasus the way our government officials do. Our relations can only be based on trust."

Shamba echoed this statement: "Our tactic with the North Caucasians is to be absolutely sincere and frank, without any diplomatic tricks that we might use with others to protect our own interests. We resort to such tricks only when they are used against us."

To sum up, good mediators, whether men or women, are known for their objectivity, sincerity, wisdom, unblemished reputation, and distance from the dispute, either geographically or in terms of their involvement. Elders are regarded as the most likely candidates for mediation, because in these cultures such personal qualities are believed to be enhanced by age.

Mediation Procedures

The period that precedes the actual mediation is critical because this is when the parties decide that they are ready to cease hostilities. This decision usually seems to be voluntary and arises when both sides feel they have taken even revenge. In most cases the side that has the highest score against the adversaries is the one that calls in mediators rather than waiting for a severe counter blow. Throughout my conversations about feuds involving deaths it was clear that combatants are motivated to seek a resolution not just to save one's own family, but also out of an awareness of the small numbers of Abkhazians and a concern for the nationality's endangered status. So a sense of self-preservation as a group was found to be a strong motive for conflict management.

Another factor encouraging mediation is the stress involved in long-term animosity. "You can't be in a state of hostility continually," explained one informant. This coincides with the "spontaneous remission" method of conflict resolution whereby "the actors tire themselves out," (Porter and Taplin 1990, p. 23) which leads to withdrawal from the conflict.

Sometimes the decision to mediate a dispute is due to the pressures of public opinion exerted by the future mediators, or perhaps, neighbors, family members, etc. Dmitry Smyr said, "mediators, members of the community, talk to recalcitrant parties one at a time to get their agreement to mediation. A very experienced elder who can speak well cites many cases of conflicts as examples, and various others come into the effort to persuade the antagonists. As mentioned earlier, fear of being outcasts is a strong motivation in such closely knit cultures as the Abkhazian, so such public pressures are quite effective.

This same approach also helps in diplomatic efforts in the Assembly. As Shamba noted: "The point is that all the participants are people of the Caucasus. This means that if someone says he won't listen to someone else's position and threatens to leave, he runs the risk of turning the whole Caucasus against him. From time immemorial this has been a concern to our people, how others look at us, because, after all, we live here together, we share common traditions. So no one will slam the door behind himself. That's why full-scale fighting won't break out between us. We won't let it get to that. Sometimes the situation may become so tense that it is necessary to remind a person that if he leaves us, it's for good."

Caucusing is also relied on in initiating mediation, unlike in China where traditional mediation procedures are similar in many other ways. Wall (1990) conjectures in his study of these practices that the absence of caucusing indicates that the Chinese may be "less inclined (than Westerners) to view people as individuals. Rather they perceive people as members of a group. Therefore the mediator, when encountering a dispute, views the dispute as a group problem (or process) and calls upon the group to mend itself." In Abkhazia, mediators and members of the community talk to the recalcitrant parties one at a time to get their agreement to mediation. As Dmitry Smyr explained, "a very experienced elder who can speak well cites many cases of conflicts as examples, and various other people come into the effort to persuade the antagonists."

The Abkhazians say they went to support Ingush demonstrators against the Ossetians, even though they knew the Ingush had good relations with their adversary, the Georgians. "At official meetings," said Alamiya, "We have to be diplomats and avoid this issue [Ingush-Ossetian conflict--PG], or if it comes up, we try not to take sides. Behind the scenes we do the negotiating." Alamiya would talk to Ossetian writers, one by one. Then he could get them to admit where the Ossetians were wrong, but his efforts had not succeeded in resolving the conflict. However he felt that both the Ingush and Ossetians trusted the Abkhazians as a result of his caucusing, and stressed the difficulties involved in gaining this trust: "It's very hard to be a good person in the Caucasus because you run the risk of always offending someone when you express your opinion. Our main purpose is to get each side to agree to concessions."

When mediators begin the actual mediation procedures, a standard opening, according to one informant who has witnessed many such situations, is as follows: "We've come at the request of society. Have you anything against us?" By this time, the parties are ready for mediation and will answer in the negative, thus confirming their willingness to bow to the authority of the mediators.

The concept of Apsua has traditionally been the most important element of mediation procedures. Apsua means Abkhazian, and so it is this appeal to ethnicity, to Abkhazian values, and to the very existence of the group that forms the main thrust of the mediators' arguments for reconciliation. Mediators commonly say: "Are you an Abkhazian (Apsua )? If so, then you must do this," whatever the mediators suggest. Or mediators may say: "How can you do that to another Abkhazian; there are so few of us as it is?" This mechanism of conflict resolution clearly serves to preserve the endangered ethnic group, so it works best within a group that shares common values.

The purpose of the Assembly was to forge a sense of all parties being ethnically related, using ancient Caucasian techniques, referring to this common ethnicity as Caucasian ethnicity. The Abkhazians told me how they helped to reinforce this "Caucasian ethnicity" by using the ancient Vainakh tradition of slaughtering a bull to make a whole village related because they all partook of the bull's blood. A whole Chechen village carried out this ritual with its Abkhazian visitors. This committed the village to fight by the side of Abkhazians, and vice versa.

Intermarriage also has been encouraged and even facilitated by the Assembly. Shamba gave this explanation after citing several examples of Abkhazian men or women marrying representatives of the Assembly's groups: "When people have contact with each other, marriages are inevitable. For years we really had no contact with them. When we had our Assembly meeting in Nalchik (Kabardino-Balkaria), one Abkhazian student fell in love with a Kabardian woman. It just works out that way. Emotionally people are prepared for this because they read articles about our contacts, our good relations, how the different people support us." Alamiya added, "It's an interesting phenomenon, because none of these peoples wants their daughters to marry outside the group, but they will now allow marriage with Abkhazians."

Although the appeal to ethnicity is the strongest means of persuasion among a group of people so acutely aware of their fragility, other techniques are used, too, depending on the conflict. One approach is to persuade parties that the conflict is not worth the antagonism. For instance, in Novy Afon, a conflict began when members of two families got in a fist fight after drinking heavily at a party. Within four days, because of growing hostility between the families, all the respected elders in the town gathered together. They contacted the relatives, and appointed a day, time and neutral place to discuss the conflict. Smyr recalled how he initially addressed the two families: "How could you fight over such a matter. Aren't you ashamed? Won't it be ridiculous if the dispute has to be heard in court?" The parties finally agreed, he said: "They shook hands and hugged, and then we held a feast where we met. Some time later one side invited the other side to their home, and treated them like honored guests." A serious conflict, explained Smyr, "is over something important in economic terms, something having to do, for instance, with agriculture."

It is important to the mediation outcome that both sides emerge from the conflict without lost dignity, which is so highly valued in the Abkhazian culture. Thus, face saving measures are part and parcel of the mediation process. Shalva Inal-Ipa, an Abkhazian anthropologist, in the 1950s and 1960s, extensively interviewed long-lived Abkhazians who provided massive oral history on conflict resolution going back to the 19th century. Inal-Ipa maintains that the goal of the mediators was not to establish who was right or wrong in the conflict because that would just exacerbate the circumstances. Instead, mediators emphasized the need for peace. He explained that, "It was felt that the guilty parties had essentially discredited themselves; it wasn't necessary to rub in the guilt."

Other informants expressed varying opinions about whether mediators are supposed to determine the guilty parties in a conflict. Some said that the only way to solve a conflict is to ascertain which side was in the wrong. One man in his fifties stressed, "Of course the mediators have to get to the bottom of the conflict, or it can't be resolved. The mediators' goal is not to smooth over the conflict, but to protect the honor of the victims." Others claimed that this is unimportant. Smyr maintains that "In court it's important to determine who's guilty. But when elders are involved in conflict resolution, they're more interested in keeping the conflict from continuing. We say to the parties: `We don't care who is right and who is wrong, that's past history. What we care about is that you make up, that you let bygones be bygones'."

This approach in interpersonal disputes is made easier in the Abkhazian culture because public expressions of pride in one's own family and children are culturally unacceptable. Therefore it is unusual, for instance, for parents to take the side of their child in a conflict with another family, even if the child is clearly in the right. One informant told me of how, as a 10-year-old, he seriously injured a neighbor boy with a knife during a fight. The father of the victim did not fault the assailant, but his own son. He preferred to assume that his son had provoked the assault, rather than display undignified fatherly pride. This is how close relatives can exert pressure on members of their family to take blame for their wrong-doing in the conflict. Public opinion favors such relatives over those who are more protective, because the former are behaving more within the confines of traditional values.

Caucasian diplomacy (or Abkhazian diplomacy) was a term used frequently to explain the actual style of mediation. Informants had a strong sense that their style was distinctly different in the Caucasus than in other cultures. Often people would tell me that the art of persuasion required mediators "to start from afar," to gradually work their way toward a mutual agreement. Humor was also cited as an important element of this diplomacy. How mediators express themselves, their style of behavior, is as important as what they say. As an informant explained, "It [Caucasian diplomacy--P.G.] can be expressed in a particular gesture, facial expression, reinforced by the right words said at the right time." When I came to this part of my conversations with informants it was hard to learn details because apparently so much of the mediation procedure is spontaneous and subjective. The specifics of the mediators' eloquence was hard to convey.

Abkhazian members of the Assembly told me about one typical example of how tensions were settled between the Ingush and Ossetian representatives in the Assembly. During one of the meetings an Ingush made a statement that prompted the Ossetian delegation to walk out, feeling insulted. It is noteworthy that the Ossetians left the room but not the building because they did not want to break ties with the group, only make a statement of protest. Apparently this fact gave the signal that they wanted a mediator to persuade them to go back into the meeting, without losing face. An Abkhazian official from the town of Gudauta, with a reputation for skillful conciliation techniques, took it upon himself to caucus with the offended delegation. He had already earned a reputation in the Assembly as someone who was well respected among his own people. The Abkhazians described him as a man who "Spoke with great self-confidence, humor, and magnanimously." He focused his conversation on the Narts, legendary heroes of all the North Caucasian peoples, and how that made them all brothers. The breakthrough was attributed to a joke the mediator had made (that none of my informants had overheard), because when the Ossetians re-entered the meeting room they were smiling and laughing.

This instance also provides an example of how the mechanism of appealing to "ethnicity" can be useful even to different ethnic groups in an alliance, by pointing out that each is a victim of injustice. This makes them an "us." Shamba, on another occasion when caucusing with the Ossetians claimed the following: "I told them that we Abkhazians and Ossetians alike are the victims of injustice, and that's why we must be fair to others." This could have only been done in caucusing, without the Ingush knowing about the statement, and might be an example of how such an approach could undermine the mediator's sincerity.

Once the mediators persuade the antagonists to reconcile, the next step is to finalize the agreement. Usually this is done by an offer of hospitality and, if applicable, material compensation for losses occurred, "the price of blood," as it were. The initiator of the hospitality might say: "I want to get rid of hard feelings and invite you over to say some kind words, apologize, and give gifts."

Acceptance of hospitality has an even more binding effect than a modern contract, signed and sealed in a court of law. Eating someone else's food precludes any future animosity. A solemn ritual oath of reconciliation is sacred and cannot be broken.

Traditionally a feud could be ended either by fosterage (atalychestvo ), the practice of giving up a child to be raised in another family, or by adoption of a child or adult as a means of uniting two families as relatives. In this case the hospitality ritual was combined with bringing the child into its new home. Fosterage and adoption were widespread in the Caucasus throughout the 19th century and in Abkhazia it was practiced at the beginning of the 20th century (Kosven 1961). Even if one side did not agree to adoption as the solution, there was still hope. If a woman from the family which offered the adoption could get access to a child from the reluctant family and put the child to her breast, even symbolically, the relationship was sealed. No more blood could be shed between the two families. If no child was available, another alternative was for a man to find an opportunity to somehow steal into the home of the reluctant family and put his lips to a woman's breast, perhaps the wife or mother of the revenging male. Although the adoption was forced, it was fair and had to be recognized.

According to Inal-Ipa (1956), there were cases, however, when such forced reconciliations were contested. For instance, in the village of Tamysh there was a conflict between Bazala and Kiamach over land. To put an end to the conflict Bazala kidnapped Kiamach's infant son, and adopted him to make the two families relatives. Later Kiamach berated his brother Chincha for not avenging him. Chincha pointed out in defense that Bazala had paid honor to the family by adopting Kiamach's son. "They took my son. What's that got to do with you?" retorted the indignant Kiamach.

Offended, Chincha killed Bazala in a fit of anger. The villagers discussed the matter and decided that Chincha had to be sent away. His parents agreed to the decision, not wanting a son who "mixed milk with blood." Kiamach's son remained in the care of Bazala's family for several years. Chincha died far away from home, a lonely outcast. As an Abkhazian saying goes, "blood can be washed away with mother's milk but blood and milk can never be mixed." Like it or not, Bazala had made himself a relative of Kiamach and Chincha. When Chincha murdered Bazala it was tantamount to murdering his own brother.

No one could remember any cases of adoption for reconciliation since before World War II. But I did hear of cases when after reconciliation, the members of families formerly in conflict, intermarried.

Conclusion

Preparation for mediation is perhaps even more important than the actual process of mediation. This is the stage when the hostile parties are persuaded to seek a peaceful resolution to their dispute or conflict. Caucusing is often the most effective method. This is also the time when the mediator or mediators are accepted by both sides and are entrusted with the authority that empowers them to essentially dictate the terms of the reconciliation.

The strongest arguments used to encourage compromise and reconciliation in both the preparatory stage and the actual process of mediation are appeals to ethnicity, common values, and public opinion. In the case of the Abkhazians the use of culture-specific values are closely linked with the people's acute awareness of their small numbers and endangered culture. In building the alliance of North Caucasian peoples the appeal to ethnicity is broadened and referred to as Caucasian ethnicity.

Clearly, the reconciliation of antagonistic parties in the Caucasus, as evidenced by this study, is impossible unless both sides emerge from the conflict with a sense of dignity. Some mediators may insist on determining who started the conflict, who is more guilty of wrong-doing, and others may avoid doing this at all. In either case the end result must be that both sides can face their neighbors and friends with no sense of lingering guilt. A crucial factor is the style of the mediators, a style that involves good humor and eloquence, and promotes face saving.

Sealing the reconciliation is the final stage. Until World War II the most common way to do this after a serious conflict was to ritually make the hostile parties relatives, either by ritually or actually adopting members of each other's families. Feasting together was another way to ensure that the conflict would never resume. Today this is the most common means, and is more binding than a legal contract in modern Western cultures.

Perhaps more universal values could be substituted to work effectively in conflict resolution within and between other groups outside the Caucasus. Seeking ways to adapt traditional conflict resolution techniques to modern societies is a challenge for future research.

Kosven, M.O., 1961. Etnografiya I istoriya Kavkaza (Ethnography and History of the Caucasus), Moscow.

Porter, Jack Nusan & Taplin, Ruth, 1987. Conflict and Conflict Resolution . (New York: University Press of America).

Wall, James A. Wall, Jr., 1990. Mediation in the People's Republic of China. In: Afzalur M. Rahim, ed., Theory and Research in Conflict Management (New York: Praeger).

Return to Culture

Return to Blood Revenge

Return to Features