Reconciliation: Re-weaving a Social Fabric that Heals
In Search of Reconciliation
In the market place of ideas, the concepts and language of reconciliation have become quite popularized and at the same time diluted. Coming out of the turmoil of the South African political transition of the 1990s, it became abundantly clear to me that the term reconciliation was easily ‘hijacked’ to serve the particular interests of any number of socio-political groupings. For some reconciliation was used to describe the political process of power-sharing as represented in the Government of National Unity.
For others it referred to a new political and legal dispensation governed by the ‘rule of law’ and democratic reform that allowed former enemies to live together without killing each other. Still others would have used the term to describe a “good working relationship” on the job or in the community with persons of another culture or race. While all of these notions have linkages to genuine reconciliation, they are only parts of the whole. Authentic reconciliation requires us to move beyond mere social tolerance or political coexistence it is concerned with repairing the harmony in the life of a community or nation.
By harmony, I mean the restoring of meaningful relationships (relationships of dignity, trust and collaboration). Harmony also infers at least two other aspects: a collective concern for the common good in of all (corporate well-being), and a shared future view that gives hope and motivation to the idea of unity.
The Pathways and Patterns of Reconciliation
There are volumes of published literature on what reconciliation is and how it is accomplished.
i John Paul Lederach refers to reconciliation as a journey – one that entails initial separation, then a turning point followed by various encounters with self, God and others, reparations, and finally full human recognition of the ‘enemy’ other.
ii International Alert defines reconciliation at a national level as a fourstep process consisting of: acknowledgement, restitution, political and economic reconstruction, and lastly reconstruction of relationships.
iii Hugo van der Merwe breaks down the actual components of reconciliation in the picture of an iceberg or a pyramid. At the top of the triangular shape he places our visible “patterns of interaction” which involve the type and extent of communication, exposure to others’ way of life, and social and workplace interaction. Below that level are the “attitudes towards the adversary” which involve the issues of trust, understanding, myths, prejudices and stereotypes.
At yet another deeper level is the “values regarding interaction” which involve human rights culture, tolerance, relationship and cooperation. Finally, at the foundation level is the “identity” which involves the overarching, possibly common or divergent values, philosophies, religious beliefs and ideologies that govern life.
iv All of these levels impact and intersect with each other in the process of reconciliation. The key point here is that the most visible levels are probably the easiest to address. Behavioral transformation is the most measurable type of change. However, transforming attitudes, values and identities, can be a much greater challenge.
2 Ron Kraybill outlines a cyclical model of reconciliation that starts with relational injury, followed by withdrawal, reclaiming identity, internal commitment to reconcile, restoration of risk, negotiation to meet present needs and back into relationship.
v Similarly, Russian psychologist, Olga Botchavora has developed a cycle of reconciliation that poses the following steps:
1. Act of Aggression
2. Injury / pain caused
3. Realization of loss
4. Expressing grief / mourning
5. Accepting new reality
6. Understanding the motive of the “enemy”
7. Choice/commitment to forgive
8. Re-writing a joint history
9. Establishing justice
10. Reconciliation
Download full article by clicking on the link below