Resumen de To be or not to be: Bridging diverging positions in the case of Charlie Hebdo
In the aftermath of the 7th January 2015 attacks, when jihadist gun killed 12 people at the headquarters of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, the slogan Je suis Charlie (‘I am Charlie’) quickly spread on media platforms in support of the magazine and the victims. However, few –if not many– people did not support the –entire– slogan and would even claim Je ne suis pas Charlie (‘I am not Charlie’). Such diverging points of view often led to heated debate –if not arguments– on social media or long discussions between friends. Finding common grounds between these two sides has to be thoroughly scrutinized yet with a view to reaching reconciliation points and, finally, resolving if not positively transforming such conflict. The conflict finds its roots in satire –the controversial tool used by Charlie Hebdo in its weekly issues– and the long-sustained imbalance of power between different cultures residing in France. The right to freedom of expression and the value of laïcité have been claimed so far in support of the newspaper in France. Although such views barely find support around the world, no solution has been suggested yet with a view to finding reconciliation. This contribution will apply approaches taken from peace studies to bridge the diverging positions emanating from – apparently– conflicting identities. Indeed, the need for dialogue and cultural diversity ought to be promoted through education and communication to lower the affective filter that hampers mutual understanding.
