Varieties of Reconciliation

Abstract

In recent years scholars from neighboring disciplines have emphasized the importance of conceptual rigor in designing, administering, and interpreting research in the social sciences. Drawing on this new conceptualism, this article analyzes the much talked about notion of “reconciliation.” In an effort at structuring a useful debate on possible departures from historic injustice, the article formulates a systematized concept of reconciliation based on the multitude of meanings contained in theory and practice. It distinguishes varieties of reconciliation, organizing these varieties into types and subtypes. The article argues that while most varieties of reconciliation emanate from the same root concept, the various outer layers of meaning do not overlap. This hampers not only our understanding of reconciliation, but its promotion in the international system as well. In response to this methodological malaise, the article prescribes friendly amendments—conceptual modifications and refinements designed to increase measurement validation of reconciliation as a conceptual variable.

Intergroup Reconciliation: Emotions Are Not Enough

“…The concept of intergroup reconciliation has acquired a notorious reputation for its lack of clarity (for detailed discussions of this problem and attempts to remedy it, see in particular Nadler, 2012, andBar-Siman-Tov, 2004;Bar-Tal & Bennink, 2004;Borer, 2004;Gibson, 2006;Hermann, 2004;Meierhenrich, 2008;Rouhana, 2011). Given this conceptual malaise, Cehaji c Clancy, Goldenberg, Gross, and Halperin have undertaken a highly ambitious taskthat of "conceptualizing intergroup reconciliation as an emotionregulation process" (p. 84).…”

The Cultural Genocide in Australia: A Case Study of the Forced Removal of Aborigine Children from 1912-1962

“…There is an unfortunate if understandable tendency in the former camp to comb the Australian past in search of evidence of genocide, and a proclivity to interpret any such evidence in the worst light. The latter camp do not deny the killings, but it absolves the colonial and national governments of responsibility, and it insists that while the policies of child removal may have been misguided by today's standards, they were well intentioned" [13].…”

Reconciliation: A comprehensive framework for empirical analysis

“…While some works have provided narratives to account for the variety of definitions available (Bloomfield et al, 2003;Bloomfield, 2006;Brounéus, 2003;Meierhenrich, 2008;Nadler, 2012), here we make use of the seven dimensions, and the categories they encompass, in order to systematically describe the way the literature approaches the concept.…”