a view of reconciliation by t.k. luchkiw The ending of a conflict does not mean that peace or reconciliation will automatically be achieved. When a hurricane destroys a city, all is not well immediately after the storm subsides. Devastation occurs on many levels. Buildings are damaged, personal property is lost, injuries and deaths have occurred, and horrific memories linger in the minds of those who survive it. Comparable traumas are seen whether destruction is caused by nature or by organizations composed of human hands. Trauma from conflict is unique, however, in that it brings a tangible target at which to thrust one’s hurt and anger: “the others.� Once the storm of conflict subsides, the two opposing groups of people must share a common space while they rebuild from their losses. Reconciliation defined Reconciliation is the word we use to talk about the process by which societies learn to live together in the post-conflict environment. It is not merely co-existence, but the attempt to heal trauma. Reconciliation is important because the consequences of not reconciling, of simply co-existing, can be vast. The conflict could potentially reignite. Reconciliation is multifaceted in that it includes the many aspects of living life as part of a community. It seeks to join the two formerly conflicting societies politically, eco-
At the individual level, the people of the community who were affected by the conflict are encouraged to overcome their individual traumas by learning the truth of history that pertains to themselves, and to ask for forgiveness and to forgive others on a case-by-case basis. It is believed by some that reconciliation at this level is what will change the community and society as a whole. It is debatable, however, whether all individuals will be able to, or even willing to, reconcile in this way. Lott Leadership students and staff 2008. nomically, and socially. This means that the playing field must be leveled. People must be seen as equals. We are looking at two levels in this process: the individual and the societal. In our recent travels to the United States, Northern Ireland, and South Africa, the Trent Lott Leadership Program has seen the work of reconciliation being attempted at both levels. At the societal level, public policy is crucial. Proper decisions need to be made pertaining to the creation of equal conditions (e.g., the stance taken on affirmative action, fair housing laws, etc.). At the societal level, it is the government that must paint the picture of what the new community should look like. It is organizations of leadership that must act as proponents of reconciliation to create a new atmosphere of peace.
Merging for peace It is my opinion that reconciliation for two previously conflicting groups merging together for peace will occur at a societal level, not at the individual level. This issue has been debated already, with the alternative view being that if victims and those who have caused them harm can reconcile, and these reconciliations occur among enough people, the community as a whole is reconciled. However, not all individuals are ready to forgive, and not all may believe they should ask for forgiveness. Indeed, it is the opinion of some that there are certain people who will simply be unable to reconcile. As a doctoral student in psychology, and certainly as a therapist, I do personally believe that it is vitally important for individuals to work through a process of reconciliation for their own psychological well-being. However, I also believe that it is a process the university of mississippi 2008 | 89