Transforming Trauma in the Aftermath of Gross Human Rights Abuses: Making Public Spaces Intimate Through the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Gobodo-Madikizela, Pumla

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195300314.003.0004

Cited by 28 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reconciliatory attitudes, as assessed in the present research, are a pivotal antecedent of durable and stable peace (Bar‐Tal & Bennink, ), but they are not the sole basis for intergroup reconciliation. Conflict reconciliation also involves specific emotions such as collective guilt or shame that reflect the disputing parties’ acceptance of responsibility for their wrongdoings (Gobodo‐Madikizela, ). Reconciliation further requires action through the removal of structural barriers that maintain unequal treatment of the victim group (Rouhana, ), for example, through affirmative action policies (Pratkanis & Turner, ), or an official apology (Kelman, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remember your crimes: How an appeal to ingroup wrongdoings fosters reconciliation in separatist conflict

Mashuri

Leeuwen

Vugt

2018

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of appeals to ingroup wrongdoings, as opposed to ingroup rightdoings, on reconciliation between groups in a real-world conflict. We conducted an experiment in Indonesia, where separatist conflict in the province West Papua is currently unresolved. Participants were a sample of Javanese residents (N = 502), representing the majority group in Indonesia. Compared to ingroup rightdoings, being reminded of ingroup wrongdoings significantly increased participants' sense of perpetratorhood. These feelings of being a perpetrator in turn fostered participants' reconciliatory attitudes towards the separatist group. These findings reveal that an appeal to ingroup wrongdoings can be effective in promoting intergroup reconciliation. In addition to theoretical implications, we discuss practical implications in terms of highlighting the importance of acknowledging ingroup wrongdoings as part of an intervention programme.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remember your crimes: How an appeal to ingroup wrongdoings fosters reconciliation in separatist conflict

Mashuri

Leeuwen

Vugt

2018

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The perpetrator group moves up the staircase toward the second floor when formal discussions between representatives of the perpetrator and victimized groups occur. Discussions should be aimed at reconstructing an accurate record of the past so that the cries of those victimized are heard, understood, and validated (Branscombe & Cronin, 2010; Gobodo‐Madikizela, 2008; Minow, 1998; Tutu, 1999). To this point, a consensus of history must be reached.…”

Section: What Are the Outcomes Of The Intergroup Apology? Empirical Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Review of Official Public Apologies: Aims, Pitfalls, and a Staircase Model of Effectiveness

Wohl

Hornsey

Philpot

2011

Social Issues Policy Review

115

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world has entered into an “age of apology,” in which governments, armies, and corporations have increasingly begun apologizing for their role in committing historical and contemporary harms. Although it is widely assumed that such apologies help promote intergroup forgiveness, this assumption has not been subjected to a great deal of empirical investigation, and the little research that exists presents a mixed picture. In this article, we present some of the political and ideological arguments for and against providing intergroup apologies. We then critically review the research on the outcomes of apologies, with an eye to developing concrete strategies for maximizing apology effectiveness. Drawing on these discussions, a staircase model for effective intergroup apologies is offered that has implications for social policy. Although we present some pessimism regarding the outcome of intergroup apologies, this article provides arguments for the necessity of formal intergroup apologies and for policy that maximizes their positive effects.

show abstract

“…At the same time, victims' expressions of empathy towards perpetrators' perspective and forgiveness for their wrongdoing alleviate their moral inferiority and reaffirm their belongingness to the moral community from which they feel potentially excluded. Using the apology-forgiveness cycle has the power to dramatically transform relations between former adversaries (Gobodo-Madikizela, 2008;Tavuchis, 1991; but see Wohl, Hornsey, & Philpot, 2011, for potential pitfalls of group apologies). Perpetrators may also empower their victims by expressing respect for their abilities and achievements, appealing to their national, ethnic or racial pride, and acknowledging the contribution of their heritage.…”

Section: Reconciliation As a Social Exchange: Thementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The victims of these crimes (i.e., either the direct victims, or the bereaved families) finally had a chance to have their voice heard, as they could speak publicly about the injustice they had suffered, and grant (or withhold) forgiveness to their perpetrators -which was psychologically empowering. However, despite the important role of the TRC in facilitating a non-violent transition from apartheid to democracy (Tutu, 1999), they were (and still are) strongly criticized (e.g., for compromising justice due to the state's abrogation of the right to due process; see Gobodo-Madikizela, 2008). Put differently, the "profitability" of the exchange involved in the reconciliation process was questioned.…”

Section: Reconciliation As a Social Exchange: Thementioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Round Table Talks from the perspective of the Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation: Observations and insights

Shnabel

2020

Soc. Psychol. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This commentary analyzes the democratization process triggered by the Polish Round Table Talks using the framework of the Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation, which conceptualizes reconciliation as a social exchange transaction in which perpetrators gain moral-social acceptance, whereas victims gain power. I argue that the talks allowed the restoration of communists’ moral-social identity, and Solidarity’s power and voice. I further argue that to complete such a transaction, both parties must believe that they would gain more through compromise than through violence. They must also overcome the “magnitude gap”; namely the systematic discrepancy between victims’ vs. perpetrators’ estimation of the severity or immorality of the same transgressions or social arrangements. Finally, as is the case for any exchange transaction, people may question its benefits. When doing so, however, they might take the non-violent nature of the transition to democracy for granted – due to “the hindsight bias.” Taking into account that the alternatives were probably worse may contribute to undermining conspiracy theories about “dirty dealings” between the parties, and commemorating the legacy of the Round Table Talks as an inspiring moment in history.

show abstract

Transforming Trauma in the Aftermath of Gross Human Rights Abuses: Making Public Spaces Intimate Through the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Remember your crimes: How an appeal to ingroup wrongdoings fosters reconciliation in separatist conflict

Remember your crimes: How an appeal to ingroup wrongdoings fosters reconciliation in separatist conflict

A Critical Review of Official Public Apologies: Aims, Pitfalls, and a Staircase Model of Effectiveness

Examining the Round Table Talks from the perspective of the Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation: Observations and insights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About