“Most social science research confirms the blindingly obvious. But sometimes it reveals things nobody had thought of, or suggests that the things we thought were true are actually false.” That’s David Brooks, to my mind the best columnist in the business these days. One non-obvious conclusion reported by him in the New York Times affirms a well-known axiom that is, however, rarely cited in the conflict resolution literature: good fences make good neighbours. This is how he tells it:

“When ethnic groups clash, we usually try to encourage peace by integrating them. Let them get to know one another or perform a joint activity. This may be the wrong approach. Alex Rutherford, Dion Harmon and others studied ethnically diverse areas and came to a different conclusion. Peace is not the result of integrated coexistence. It is the result of well-defined geographic and political boundaries. For example, Switzerland is an ethnically diverse place, but mountains and lakes clearly define each group’s spot. Even in the former Yugoslavia, amid widespread ethnic violence, peace prevailed where there were clear boundaries.”

The passage is arresting, and the topic is very much relevant to Myanmar – so I decided to check out the social science behind it. The article in question certainly does contain this argument. But it actually makes a more nuanced case, holding that the conditions most conducive to peace have two components: “well mixed and well separated”. That is, both cooperation and partition (through administrative or natural barriers) contribute to social harmony. That’s somewhat different from the starker version presented by Brooks.

My own reading is that distinct social groups all need a safe place to call home – which involves marking territory clearly. Otherwise insecurity fosters tension, and that in turn generates friction and violence. But there must always be contact too, meaning that separation should never be pushed too far. As it happens, the New York Times right now is carrying an article on what can transpire when partition becomes the sole policy tool. Written by Ethan Bronner, it focuses on the situation of Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East. I could take many paragraphs from this excellent piece, but find this one particularly appealing:

“The French philosopher Ernest Renan once defined a nation as ‘a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbors.’ And while that arguably applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, my sense is that the deterioration we are witnessing results from something else – the growing human distance between Israelis and Palestinians who once knew each other intimately and are now virtual strangers.”

In Myanmar, religious communities are currently being actively driven apart. Thomas Fuller’s latest dispatch, also in the New York Times, looks at the worrying situation in Mandalay 10 days or so after anti-Muslim riots disfigured the city. For this troubled country, building good fences is not the priority. Rather, doing everything possible to reduce the growing gulf between Buddhists and Muslims is the most urgent task.