![]()
1 Introduction
Kevin P. Clements and SungYong Lee
Reconciliation requires changes of heart and spirit, as well as social and economic change. It requires symbolic as well as practical action.
This axiomatic statement of Malcolm Fraser (2003) reinforces the importance of a holistic approach to reconciliation in conflict-affected societies. From an individualâs inner trauma to residual grievances between different identity groups, there are multi-layered and inter-connected factors that generate and intensify victimhood and seemingly irreconcilable divisions between different social actors. If we are to build mutuality across boundaries of difference and attend to diverse broken relationships, it is critical that we think in a systemic and multidimensional way so that we can see that things which are apart are in fact connected and work to ensure social healing at micro, meso and macro levels of analysis and action. Such a holistic approach to reconciliation is particularly needed in the societies that have experienced mass violence between different identity groups. But what do we really know about how to implement such holistic measures in post-conflict peacebuilding processes?
Although academic studies on reconciliation have a long history, it is only since the mid-1990s that reconciliation has been extensively discussed in the context of post-conflict peacebuilding (Kelman 2008; Bar-Tal and Bennink 2004). The relative success of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in post-apartheid South Africa drew keen attention from many post-war societies about how to bring about consolidated peace and reconciliation between former warring parties. Since then, âsocial reconciliationâ quickly emerged as a central element in peacebuilding processes (Lerche 2000: 61) and a range of programmes for âassisting antagonists to put their pasts of violence and estrangement behind themâ have been implemented. Academic debates on the nature and functions of reconciliation in conflict-affected societies have been developed in academic disciplines like Peace and Conflict Studies, Politics, International Studies, Psychology, Human Geography, Sociology and the like. 1 Through such research, the complexity and multidimensionality of reconciliation have been clarified and examined. Reconciliation requires deep psychological, sociological, theological and philosophical insights and actions at multiple levels (national, societal, communal levels). This chapter argues that the practice of peacebuilding should come up with holistic, contextualised and systematic approaches to reconciliation.
Nevertheless, despite renewed attention to reconciliation in contemporary peacebuilding programmes, its community-level dimensions remain under-theorised and under-researched. Instead, most attention was given to different reconciliation mechanisms that are mainly relevant to state or inter-state institutions (e.g., Alfonsin 1993; Lederach 1997; Amnesty International 1998; Rigby 2001). For instance, state peacebuilding agencies considered truth-telling, reparation to victims and prosecution of the perpetrators as the primary resources for promoting reconciliation, through organisations such as the TRC, international tribunals for war crimes, reparations for victims, sites and practices of remembrance and educational measures that have been adopted in most reconciliation programmes. TRCs especially were considered the single most important institution and some 40 peacebuilding processes have applied this mode of reconciliation over the past decades. A large number of humanitarian agencies and peacebuilding organisations nowadays incorporate social reconciliation programmes into their portfolios and Western donor agencies have adopted reconciliation as one of four key areas for funding (Smith 2004; Bloomfield 2006). In addition to these institutions, peacebuilding actors also pay attention to the roles of security, political, economic and governance structures in supporting good conditions for reconciliation (Bloomfield 2003; Bar-Tal and Bennink 2004; Guthrey 2015; Breen Smyth 2007; Rotberg and Thompson 2000; Bockers et al. 2011).
The limitations of such state-centric institutional approaches to social reconciliation, however, became obvious in the late 1990s. Some studies argued that economic and political institutions may play a supplementary role, but cannot offer sufficient conditions for reconciliation; others clarified that these institutions may work in âdemocraticâ countries, but not in nondemocratic states (Lederach 1997, 1998; Simpson 1997; Kriesberg 1998; Lipschutz 1998; Wilmer 1998; Arnson 1999; Arthur 1999; Breuneis 2016: 9; Lie et al. 2007). Moreover, from a broader perspective, it was found that the domination of Western models of peacebuilding creates many barriers to the promotion of sustainable and consolidated peace in conflict-affected areas. Notwithstanding the findings and suggestions, the forms of major practice for reconciliation have not changed much and are still based upon state-centric assumptions (Hameiri 2010; Charbonneau and Parent 2012).
In the light of this bias, recent peacebuilding practice regarding reconciliation has been supplemented by and integrated into a wider range of research on reconciliation in general. Multi-Level Reconciliation and Peacebuilding offers a different perspective on ways in which conflict-affected areas can think about reconciliation in holistic terms. This edited volume aims to illuminate the intra- and intergroup dynamics of reconciliation that emerged in the post-conflict peacebuilding process, by focusing attention on social, psychological and bottom-up practices of reconciliation.
Under the overarching question of âHow do people rebuild and define the relations with former harm-doers in their everyday lives?,â 12 chapters investigate more specific questions from conceptual, theoretical and practical perspectives. Each chapter reflects on the cognitive and psychological aspects of reconciliation at the inter-personal and intergroup levels in conflict-affected societies. In terms of the topic areas, this volume examines various aspects of reconciliation at individual, interpersonal and intergroup levels, as well as their implications in laying the groundwork and creating ripe conditions for top-level mechanisms for reconciliation (such as TRCs) to take place.
Social psychology and the discourse of everyday peace
In developing the core analytical frameworks of this project, the literature on reconciliation developed in social psychology and the âeveryday peaceâ discourse in peace and conflict studies offers particularly useful references, although the perspectives in the contributing chapters are not restricted to these research areas only.
First, the studies developed in social psychology offer a foundation for understanding how people understand reconciliation with their former enemies and react to the practice aimed at facilitating reconciliation. Conventional studies on reconciliation in this discipline have illuminated the roles of âpsychological ingredients (âŚ) to discuss the very different context that applies in a post-violence society emerging from a sustained war or an oppressive regimeâ (Bloomfield 2006: 10).
At the individual level, healing and forgiveness, among other aspects, have attracted keen academic attention. The importance of psychological healing of the victims has been emphasised as the first step toward reconciliation, enabling victims to cope with trauma with a sense of dignity (Volkan 2006, 2008; Parent 2011; Hamber 2009; Staub 2003; Charbonneau and Parent 2012). Nevertheless, healing in the aftermath of chronic violence and material deprivation tends to be a lengthy and non-linear process (Parent 2011), and is marked by various procedures and outcomes depending on the individuals, groups and communities (Galappatti 2003; Kandowitz and Riak 2008). Hence, any attempt to come up with a universally applicable prescription for healing is likely to end up in failure.
While forgiveness can be a powerful foundation for post-war reconciliation, it should be understood and dealt with in a very nuanced way through victimsâ individual self-experience. Victimsâ willingness to forgive and change depends on the level of acknowledgement, expression of regret, the people to be forgiven, the existence of bystanders and the like (Enright 2001; McCullough et al. 2000; Massey and Abu-Baker 2009). Moreover, positive inter-personal relationships and high awareness of group membership are identified as effective sources of forgiveness (Hewstone 1996; Hewstone et al. 2000). Hence, institutional or normative pressure on victims to forgive, without considering individualsâ own challenges, is likely to generate negative consequences (Govier 2002).
At the social level, studies examined the psychological dimensions that penetrate the societal fabric. In these studies, reconciliation involves âmodifying motivations, beliefs, and attitudes of the majorityâ (Bar-Tal and Bennink 2004: 11) which are related to subjective factors such as âmisperceptions, mistrust, and frustrated basic needsâ (Fisher 1999: 85). In order to develop a common psychological framework in which different social groups can accept coexistence with others, studies have investigated the social psychological consequences of reconciliation programmes like restorative justice, truth-telling and amnesia (Riek et al. 2008).
Recent studies have attempted to integrate social psychology perspectives into the post-conflict peacebuilding contexts. Significant studies include Ilai Along and Daniel Bar-Talâs The Role of Trust in Conflict Resolution: The Israeli-Palestinian Case and Beyond (2016) and Bruno Charbonneau and Genevieve Parentâs Peacebuilding, Memory and Reconciliation: Bridging top-down and bottom-up approaches (2012). A few journals, such as Political Psychology and Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, have attempted to bridge the discussions in these silos. There are also a significant number of studies that aim to reflect bottom-up approaches and psychological aspects of the âreconciliation in post-war settingsâ (i.e., Brouneus 2016; Montiel and Christie 2003; Riek et al. 2008).
Second, this volume adopts âeveryday peaceâ discourse as a core framework in order to acknowledge and examine the existence (or nonexistence) of reconciliatory elements embedded in peopleâs daily living. The discourse on everyday peace has recently emerged to offer an alternative perspective to the mainstream liberal peace agenda. In these studies, everyday denotes âa set of micro-processes of practices in a constant interaction driven by the agency of ordinary people in concrete circumstancesâ (Chandler 2015: 43). Although detailed foci vary, the studies adopting âeverydayâ approaches by and large pursue locally based, non-prescriptive, reflexive (open to change) approaches to peacebuilding that can be safeguarded against elite capture (Mac Ginty 2013). In particular, studies by people such as James Scott and Michel de Certeau lay a solid foundation for the studies.
This discourse was adopted by Peace and Conflict Studies to address the limitations of institutionally oriented debates on peacebuilding. Indeed, it is risky when such mainstream peacebuilding practice disregards the significance of less visible practices of peacebuilding carried out by local populations in their everyday life. The avenues of peopleâs livelihood such as âlocal agency, rights, needs, custom and kinshipâ provide important context to decision-making, promote active peacebuilding (Richmond 2010) and attempt to âaccurately reflect the on-the-ground situation in a textured way that is meaningful to local communitiesâ (Mac Ginty 2013).
The values and utilities of the everyday peace have been explained from conceptual, theoretical and practical perspectives. Practically, such everyday approaches enable peacebuilders to reflect âthe complexity and flui...
