Narvamus

MEMORY THAT UNITES (AND DIVIDES) US: RADICALIZATION, DEHUMANIZATION, POLARIZATION, AND GROUP IDENTITY

Illustration - Regina Krentsel

I am a Ukrainian living in Estonia. The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine caught me here, far from home, while my entire family remained in Ukraine.
Some time ago, shortly before these events, I read Fred Uhlman’s Reunion. It is a semi-autobiographical story set in Stuttgart during the Nazi regime. The protagonist eventually fled to the United States, and after many years of living there, he says the following:
“Of course, I still had to interact with some Germans. They were good people who had once been imprisoned for resisting Hitler. I did my research; I knew their history. One must be cautious with Germans. Before shaking a German’s hand, you must be completely sure that he hasn’t stained his hands with the blood of your relatives and friends. As for those people, I had no doubts at all. Even though they actively fought Nazism, they still suffered from a sense of guilt, and I genuinely felt sorry for them. But even with them, I pretended that I could hardly speak German.”
I feel those words deeply. Even though the Russian language still appears in my life (I live in a Russian-speaking region of Estonia), the “German” in Uhlman’s quote emotionally reflects my own complicated feelings about the Russian language and culture at a time when my country is under aggression. I became interested in why this happens. What socio-psychological processes lie behind this phenomenon, and how does it affect my sense of belonging and identity?
I am not alone in these reflections. Researchers who study the impact of traumatic experiences on group identity and collective memory also ask similar questions. In this article, I have tried to gather scholarly concepts that help explain why radicalization, destructive polarization, and dehumanization take place, and how a “collective trauma” can transform our sense of belonging and spawn new forms of group identity.

GROUP IDENTITY AND COLLECTIVE MEMORY

Group identity is the sense of belonging to a certain social community (ethnic, religious, national, etc.). Its formation is closely linked with collective memory: each large group has “shared” historical events, interpretations, and images of the past, which are passed on from generation to generation.

“Chosen Trauma” and “Chosen Glories”

Vamık D. Volkan, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who has devoted much research to group psychology and collective trauma, introduces the concepts of “chosen trauma” and “chosen glories.” “Chosen trauma” is a profoundly painful, not fully “mourned” experience that continues to live in the minds of a large group, transmitting from one generation to the next. When a crisis ensues (including war), it is precisely this “chosen trauma” that sharply heightens fear, distrust, and hostility toward “others.

”In contrast, “chosen glories” are symbolic events by which a group takes pride and which emphasize its “higher mission.”
In the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war, it is often mentioned how Russian propaganda draws on images of World War II: the myth of “denazifying” Ukraine is based on parallels with the fight against Nazism. This is a typical example of what Volkan calls “time collapse”: when an old but not fully processed trauma or myth is directly overlaid onto a contemporary situation, creating a psychological foundation for hostility. At the same time, in Ukraine, on the contrary, images of its own struggle for independence and freedom have been reinforced.

THE WAR’S IMPACT ON UKRAINIANS’ COLLECTIVE MEMORY

Reformatting Historical Memory

Since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022, perceptions of history within Ukrainian society have noticeably changed. Researchers analyzing sociological polls note that the current conflict is increasingly viewed as a continuation of the long-standing struggle against Russian (or “Moscow”) aggression. For example, attitudes toward the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, once controversial, have significantly improved: many of its members are now more often perceived as freedom fighters.

Changes in National Identity

On the other hand, civic self-identification is being strengthened. People from different regions and languages have united in resisting the external threat. If previously there was a stereotype of “Ukrainian-speaking West vs. Russian-speaking East,” the war has effectively erased these dividing lines. Many ethnic Russians living in Ukraine have come to see themselves as part of a single Ukrainian nation, while Russian-speaking citizens are more and more frequently adopting the Ukrainian language as a symbol of resistance.
However, there is also a sort of “radicalization” of the ethnocultural component. The rejection of “everything Russian” has become a reaction to the horrors of the war. Such a tendency boosts national self-awareness, but sometimes minimizes the possibility of dialogue.

RADICALIZATION

According to Erik Erikson, a developmental psychologist and psychoanalyst best known for his theory of psychosocial development and coining the term “identity crisis,” radicalization is a form of “rigid” self-assertion, in which an individual or group deliberately separates itself from the outside world and constructs a negative identity, often contrary to values or roles once deemed unattainable.
Radicalization often serves as a defensive mechanism: it can be easier to consciously become “bad” than to remain “nobody” or “not really someone.” Under wartime conditions, this stance is strengthened when a group senses injustice, undergoes a traumatic experience or humiliation, and reacts by retreating into a narrow, polarized identity.

DESTRUCTIVE POLARIZATION

Destructive polarization occurs when a society or separate groups increasingly diverge in opinions, values, and perceptions of each other. It is not just “different views”; it is an attitude of “us vs them,” in which the capacity for compromise is absent. As polarization grows, each “camp” begins to broadcast persistent negative stereotypes about the other side, at times refusing dialogue altogether.
Old grievances, historical traumas, and symbols can again “rise from the depths” to justify hostility and distrust. The conflict seems to shift onto a personal level: anyone who belongs to the “other” group is perceived as an enemy, irrespective of individual qualities.

DEHUMANIZATION: WHEN THE “OTHER” CEASES TO BE HUMAN

Dehumanization is an extreme expression of negative attitudes toward “others,” in which they are no longer regarded as full human beings possessing inherent dignity and value. Lord John Alderdice—a psychiatrist and politician from Northern Ireland, notable for his contribution to peace processes and conflict resolution—explains that in dehumanization, “emotional empathy is switched off, and violence becomes easier to justify.”
This is especially evident in propaganda surrounding the war in Ukraine:
  • The Russian side declares Ukraine “infested with Nazis” and needing “denazification,” sometimes employing ethnic slurs and linguistic clichés to justify aggression.
  • On the Ukrainian side, there is also the term “orcs,” intended to underscore the inhuman cruelty of the enemy.
Although such portrayals often stem from tragic experiences, pain, and anger, they also result in the “other side” being perceived less and less as people. Mutual dehumanization serves as a propagandistic instrument and fuels brutality. The vicious cycle of “misunderstanding → devaluation → radicalization → aggression” only reinforces barriers between groups.

WHEN DIALOG SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE…

At this stage of the war, it is difficult to speak of any reconciliation or dialogue: wounds are fresh, and the traumatic experience is too recent. Any mention of “making peace” can sound like a call to ignore egregious brutality. As Volkan notes, true healing requires recognizing both one’s own suffering and that of the other side, and acknowledging that sooner or later, we must find a way to coexist—even if without illusions of complete harmony.
Yet this is difficult if the aggressor state refuses to acknowledge its own crimes and continues to operate based on the logic of “defending its imperial mission.” According to Javakhishvili, such a situation demands a profound transformation in the consciousness of large masses, which may take years—if not generations.
The Narrow Bottleneck of Ukraine-Russia Reconciliation indicates that if the aggressor does not undergo deep political and social change, the post-conflict peace may remain “thin”—merely formal and lacking genuine trust. There are many examples of this “semi-peaceful” coexistence after violent conflicts in world history; in such cases, resentment, fear, and mistrust can persist across generations.

…YET THERE IS HOPE

History has shown examples where, even after horrific conflicts, a slow process of restoring relationships has begun. Now, in the midst of war, every day is a reminder of how important it is not to give in to dehumanization and not to reduce the “others” to an image of absolute evil. The more we dehumanize the “enemy,” the more we destroy ourselves. Of course, putting this into practice is challenging when shelling and losses continue unabated. Nonetheless, preserving our humanity and self-respect is one of the ways that, in the future, may lead us back to dialogue, however distant and difficult that may be.
______________

This material is part of the PERSPECTIVES 2 project – a new label for independent, constructive, and multiperspective journalism. The project is funded by the European Union. The opinions and positions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). The European Union and EACEA assume no responsibility for them. Learn more about PERSPECTIVES.
2025-04-30 12:53 EN Perspectives Politics and Society