Reconciliation

Definition

Reconciliation in religion and psychology refers to the coming-together of two persons (or one person and God) to restore a broken or damaged relationship. Reconciliation is also used more narrowly within the Roman Catholic Church to denote the sacrament of reconciliation, formerly called the sacrament of penance. In this sacrament the believer makes a private confession of sins to a priest and then receives assurance of God's forgiveness through a formula of absolution pronounced by a priest. There are similar rituals of reconciliation in the Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican (Episcopal) churches, although they may be called by different names.

Reconciliation is related to forgiveness, but is not identical with it. Most researchers who have studied forgiveness define it as a process of releasing or working through anger against another person, ceasing to hold resentment, and letting go of the need to punish the other or demand restitution from him or her. Forgiveness is thus understood as a process of inner healing on one person's part that does not necessarily require a response from those who hurt him or her. Reconciliation, on the other hand, entails a restoration of a broken or damaged relationship between two (or more) people. It can be used to describe the process of political healing within a nation when two groups that were formerly at war with each other work together to repair the wounds of the past, as in South Africa's Commission on Truth and Reconciliation.

Description

Religious views

The major religions of the world all teach their adherents that forgiveness is a virtue, but there is some disagreement among them on the relationship between reconciliation and forgiveness. Buddhism teaches that forgiveness is necessary in order to prevent anger and other harmful thoughts from leading to bad karma (the law of spiritual cause and effect), but that the believer can practice forgiveness without necessarily seeking reconciliation with the person who harmed them. Christianity uses the teachings and example of Jesus to enjoin forgiveness of others—forgiveness is specifically mentioned in the Lord's Prayer—and urges believers to seek reconciliation with their fellow humans when possible, but also recognizes that forgiveness can be extended even when there is no response from the other person. For example, it is possible in Christian teaching to forgive someone who is dead or who suffers from dementia and can no longer respond in words.

In Judaism, believers are required each year to seek out persons they have hurt before the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), and request forgiveness for the offense. Reconciliation in Judaism, however, involves some sign of genuine remorse on the offender's part or an attempt to make amends for the injury. One major difference between Judaism and Christianity on reconciliation, then, is the Jewish emphasis on some kind of reciprocity, whereas Christians are usually taught to forgive those who hurt them even if the offender refuses to apologize or does not care about reconciliation.

Psychological views

Until the late 1970s forgiveness and reconciliation were studied primarily as religious or spiritual categories. Psychologists, however, have become increasingly interested in forgiveness and reconciliation over the past few decades, in part because of a number of studies that showed that cultivating a forgiving attitude is beneficial to physical as well as mental health. Although there is yet no agreed-upon definition of forgiveness or reconciliation among psychologists, several researchers have explored the possibilities of teaching forgiveness as a form of therapy.

One of the earliest projects of this type was the Stanford Forgiveness Project, started at Stanford University in 1997 by Frederic Luskin and Carl Thoresen. The researchers recruited college students who were trained to forgive someone who had hurt them, and found that the students in the treatment group were much less angry and had better overall control over their feelings. Dr. Luskin has since worked out what he identifies as nine steps to forgiveness in which he draws a sharp line between forgiveness and reconciliation. His second step states, “Make a commitment to yourself to do what you have to do to feel better. Forgiveness is for you and not for anyone else.” The third of his nine steps says, “Forgiveness does not necessarily mean reconciliation with the person that hurt you, or condoning of their action. What you are after is to find peace.” His eighth step summarizes his emphasis on individuality: “Remember that a life well lived is your best revenge. … Forgiveness is about personal power.”

Another well-known researcher in the psychology of forgiveness is Robert Enright, an educational psychologist at the University of Wisconsin. He has identified four phases in the process of forgiveness: uncovering, in which the person identifies emotional pain resulting from an unjust injury; decision, in which the person becomes open to the possibility of forgiveness as a “healing strategy” the work phase, in which the injured person tries to put the hurt in a larger perspective and avoid passing it on to others; and deepening, in which the person experiences emotional relief through forgiveness and an increased sense of compassion for others. Interest in forgiveness as a psychological process has led to the formation of specialized institutes or research centers, such as the Fetzer Institute and the International Forgiveness Institute (IFI), founded by Dr. Enright.

Some psychologists disagree with these positive views of forgiveness, maintaining that forgiveness and reconciliation are not always helpful. Forgiveness, according to these researchers, can keep people trapped in abusive relationships or foster a sense of moral superiority in the person doing the forgiving. Other researchers have suggested that hasty or premature forgiveness can lead to inner conflict or confusion about one's true feelings and beliefs. Thus there is debate within the field of psychology about the value of forgiveness and reconciliation as well as disagreement about their essential characteristics or stages.

Viewpoints

Forgiveness and reconciliation are often spiritually important to seniors because the last third of the life span serves many as an opportunity for reflection on one's earlier years and repairing damaged relationships. In 1986 Pope John Paul II spoke to a group of elderly people in Australia about the spirituality of aging, which, he noted, “has its own unique challenges and invitations. Among the most important of these is the call to reconciliation that confronts the elderly in the evening of life. As you look back on your lives you may remember sufferings and personal failures. It is important to think about these experiences, so as to see them in the light of the whole of life's journey…. Thinking about the past will not alter the reality of your sufferings or disappointments, but it can change the way you look at them. Younger people cannot fully understand the way in which the elderly sometimes return to the distant past, but such reflection has its place. And when it is done in prayer it can be a source of healing.”

Health benefits

Some studies have reported that elderly people can improve their physical health through practicing forgiveness. One group of researchers reported in 2006 that reducing anger through forgiveness helps to lower blood pressure in older adults with hypertension . Another study found that forgiveness had positive effects on the quality of sleep and reduced the need for pain medication in older adults; it also lowered their risk of depression .

A specific technique that has helped patients with chronic pain is the lovingkindness meditation that is taught in the stress reduction clinic of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center. As described by Jon Kabat-Zinn, the therapist who devised the stress reduction program, the lovingkindness meditation consists of three parts. In the first, the person says inwardly, “May I be free from anger; may I be free from hatred; may I be filled with compassion, may I feel kindness toward myself.” In the second part of the mediation, the person visualizes someone they care for and wishes their loved one happiness and freedom from anger or pain. In the third part, the person identifies someone who has hurt them and then releases their resentful or angry feelings; they also ask for forgiveness from the one who hurt them for any pain they may have caused that person in return. According to Kabat-Zinn, many of his older patients find that the lovingkindness meditation eases their physical aches and pains as well as helping them cope better with painful memories or strained relationships in the present.

KEY TERMS

Forgiveness —Ceasing to feel resentment against an offender on the part of an individual, or ceasing to demand punishment or reparation.

Karma —In Buddhism and Hinduism, the law of spiritual cause and effect; the notion that all of a person's actions actively create present and future experiences.

Reconciliation —Restoration to a relationship on the part of two people; a coming-together in mutual respect.

Recovery from addictions and compulsions

Forgiveness and reconciliation are an important part of twelve-step programs for recovery from alcoholism, substance abuse, overeating, compulsive gambling, and other addictions. The eighth and ninth of the twelve steps are to make a list of all the people one needs to make amends to and to make amends directly if possible. The reason for the emphasis in twelve-step programs on making amends and repairing relationships when possible is to lower the risk of a relapse. Feelings of anger and resentment increase the likelihood of returning to the addictive substance or activity, while practicing forgiveness and seeking reconciliation with family members help older alcoholics and addicts remain sober.

End-of-life concerns

Reconciliation is a major end-of-life concern to seniors. One reason why doctors are urged to be truthful with dying patients about their condition is to offer them the opportunity to spend time with family and friends and resolve problems in relationships or heal old injuries. Part of spiritual care at the end of life is helping the senior deal with the spiritual distress that may be experienced during the final illness. It is a time to focus on time with family and loved ones and to make peace in ones life rather than necessarily a time to hope for a cure that is not always there.

Resources

BOOKS

Beers, Mark H., M. D., and Thomas V. Jones, MD. Merck Manual of Geriatrics, 3rd ed., Chapter 13, “Care of the Dying Patient.” Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck, 2005.

Donaldson-Pressman, Stephanie, and Robert M. Pressman. The Narcissistic Family: Diagnosis and Treatment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997.

Kabat-Zinn, Jon. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. New York: Delta Books, 1990.

Pelletier, Kenneth R., M.D. The Best Alternative Medicine, Chapter 11, “Spirituality and Healing.” New York: Fireside Books, 2002.

Smedes, Lewis B. Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don't Deserve. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.

Wuthnow, Robert. Growing Up Religious: Christians and Jews and Their Journeys of Faith. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999.

PERIODICALS

Arnold, E. M., K. A. Artin, D. Griffith, et al. “Unmet Needs at the End of Life: Perceptions of Hospice Social Workers.” Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life and Palliative Care 2 (April 2006): 61–83.

Baker, M. “Facilitating Forgiveness and Peaceful Closure: The Therapeutic Value of Psychosocial Intervention in End-of-Life Care.” Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life and Palliative Care 1 (April 2005): 83–95.

Carmy, Shalom. “Wounds Not Healed by Time: The Power of Repentance and Forgiveness.” First Things, April 2003. Available online at http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=463&var_recherche=reconciliation [cited March 31, 2008].

Lawler, K. A., J. W. Younger, R. L. Piferi, et al. “The Unique Effects of Forgiveness on Health: An Exploration of Pathways.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine 28 (April 2005): 157–167.

Levenson, M. R., C. M. Aldwin, and L. Yancura. “Positive Emotional Change: Mediating Effects of Forgiveness and Spirituality.” Explore 2 (November–December 2006): 498–508.

Macaskill, A. “Defining Forgiveness: Christian Clergy and General Population Perspectives.” Journal of Personality 73 (October 2005): 1237–1265.

Reed, Ross. “A Philosophical Counselor's Approach to Forgiveness and Reconciliation.” Perspectives on Evil and Human Wickedness 1 (April 2004): 193–198.

Scruton, Roger. “What Is Forgiveness?” Times Literary Supplement, December 12, 2007. Available online at http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/tls_selections/article3040040.ece [cited March 31, 2008].

Tibbits, D., G. Ellis, C. Piramelli, et al. “Hypertension Reduction through Forgiveness Training.” Journal ofPastoral Care and Counseling 60 (January-February 2006): 27–34.

Williams, A. L. “Perspectives on Spirituality at the End of Life: A Meta-Summary.” Palliative and Supportive Care 4 (December 2006): 407–417.

OTHER

Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). The Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. Available online at http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/en_services_for_members.cfm?PageID=98=SubPage=117 [cited March 31, 2008].

Luskin, Frederic. The Nine Steps to Forgiveness. Available online at http://www.learningtoforgive.com/steps.htm [cited March 31, 2008].

National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Backgrounder. Mind-Body Medicine: An Overview. Bethesda, MD: NCCAM, 2007.

NCCAM Publication No. D239. Available online at http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/mindbody.htm [cited March 12, 2008].

Pope John Paul II. Address of John Paul II to the Elderly, Perth, Australia, November 30, 1986. Available online at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/november/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861130_anziani-perth-australia_en.html [cited March 31, 2008].

ORGANIZATIONS

Fetzer Institute, 9292 West KL Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI, 49009, (269) 375-2000, http://www.fetzer.org/default.aspx.

International Forgiveness Institute (IFI), 1127 University Ave. #201, Madison, WI, 53715, (608) 251-6484, [email protected], http://www.forgiveness-institute.org/index.htm.

Rebecca J. Frey Ph.D.

Reconciliation

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reconciliation, the overcoming of differences, the healing of broken relations, is initially a religious concept addressed in the Hebrew Bible and especially in the New Testament. It has acquired wider meaning in the context of the wars and violence of the twentieth century.

In the Hebrew Bible, the term kiffer (from the verb kaffar : covering over, atonement, propitiation, reconciliation) was used in the context of animal ritual sacrifice. Propitiation of God was the objective. Saint Paul, especially in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 and in Romans 5:10, raises this concept to the level of a restoration to the favor of God for sinners who repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ. But the term refers not only to such reconciliation with God but also to the task of reconciliation with other persons as a primary requirement for the followers of Christ. In Matthew 5:23-24: “If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”

In the Gospels, as in much later discussion, reconciliation came to be paired with the concept of forgiveness, the forgiveness freely given by God and to be imitated by all. In this, the New Testament’s reconciliation with God and with others took on the full character of the Hebrew Bible’s shalom : completeness, soundness, welfare, peace. Yet in practice, the concept long tended to be confined to the private sphere, the individual’s forgiveness by God, as in the Catholic practice of confession to a priest and the absolution of sins, now called the sacrament of reconciliation rather than, as in the past, of penance.

But the wars of the twentieth century and the many situations of transitional justice (the restoration of civil relations after periods of oppression) brought the wider social-political concept of reconciliation back into prominence in Christian thinking and made it the property of all the world. Thus, in South Africa, the effort to heal the society after the ills of apartheid gave rise to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Its grant of amnesty to offenders, on condition that they admit their guilt, was seen as far more satisfactory than the more vengeful process of the Nuremberg Trials after the collapse of Nazism. We can observe an outgrowth of this development in the growing interest in restorative justice, a legal concept that defines the objective of a justice system as the restoration of relations rather than simply the determination of guilt and the punishment of the offender—retributive justice.

Christian proponents of reconciliation, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa or the Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf, have consequently held prominence in this movement, although it has also been taken up as a managed and secular technical process conducted by professional mediators. Realization of the benefits that can be derived from this kind of process has brought about the rise of Track II diplomacy, the work of nongovernmental peace-building professionals who can often help the citizenry of conflicted societies reach reconciliation in ways that the official diplomatic representatives of governments cannot, or who can be the catalysts of solutions to conflict that governments could not generate themselves.

Distinguishing between the concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation has troubled many. We may see forgiveness as the personalized action of individuals and reconciliation as the effect of the healing of relations in the broader society.

Welcome as all this has been in its humanity and generosity, it carries its dangers. Most obvious is that a demand for instant forgiveness and reconciliation, and a blaming of victims who cannot bring themselves simply to forget the evils done to them, can lead to the hasty covering up of severe trauma in a society, leaving the underlying ills unaddressed. Connected with this is the tendency, sometimes, of churches and religious actors, as well as those who most benefit from systems of exploitation, to treat reconciliation as an alternative to the liberation of victims of oppression, imposing a sense of guilt on them if they persist in their quest for justice rather than reconciling themselves to an unjust status quo. In an atmosphere in which reconciliation is seen as a virtuous action, superior (more religiously acceptable) to the pursuit of justice, this can take on the character of blackmail. And in this context the professionalization of the mediator’s task in managing conflict can easily become an unwelcome form of coercion.

Warning indications hang, therefore, over this valuable practice and concept of reconciliation. An understanding is required that unfair disparities of power between victims and controllers of society may not be tolerated. The third-party reconciler must realize that forgiveness is not an instant process, and that those who feel themselves victimized, often from both or all sides of a conflict, must have time to mourn, to lament the harm that has come to them. They must have an opportunity to learn, through what may be a difficult and time-consuming process, the common humanity of those who have hurt them. They and their victimizers need to unlearn the stereotypes by which they have perceived one another. And all the participants need to understand that it may not be possible to resolve all problems and contentions among them, but that the more promising course is a conflict transformation by which the relations among them are seen in a different light.

Setting the objective of reconciliation, however, rather than simply a cessation of violence or the stifling of protest, as in a military process of “pacification,” holds promise to bring about more humane relations among peoples, possibilities of addressing their inevitable differences of interest or aspiration nonviolently, and the healing of past traumas in ways that do not call for visiting retributive trauma on those who have harmed us. The development, as rather a new discipline, of peace studies has been a result of the renewed social and political interest in the concept of reconciliation.

SEE ALSO Truth and Reconciliation Commissions

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Helmick, Raymond G., and Rodney L. Petersen, eds. 2001. Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Religion, Public Policy, and Conflict Transformation. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press.

Kritz, Neil J., ed. 1995. Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes. 3 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace Press.

Minow, Martha. 1998. Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History After Genocide and Mass Violence. Boston: Beacon.

Schreiter, Robert J. 1992. Reconciliation: Mission and Ministry in a Changing Social Order. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Tutu, Desmond. 1999. No Future Without Forgiveness. New York: Doubleday.

Volf, Miroslav. 1996. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Raymond G. Helmick

Reconciliation

Reconciliation can refer to a condition in which there is a restoration of wholeness—a bringing together of that which has been torn apart. However, the term reconciliation may also be applied to a process: Those that have been divided by destructive conflict and enmity begin to forge new relationships that hold the promise and seeds of a shared future. The first dimension of a reconciliation process addresses the painful trauma of the past; the second focuses on those that have been divided acquiring the hope necessary to anticipate some kind of shared future. In all instances different circumstances will result in different types and degrees of reconciliation.

The bereaved and dispossessed can never recover that which they have lost, but they can learn to live with their sense of personal and collective loss. For the sake of future peace, this is particularly vital for societies emerging from terrible experiences such as genocide.

The relative success of community efforts to deal constructively with the legacy of fear and hatred that divides it appears to depend in the first instance on three factors:

1. Truth: The perpetrators are prepared to acknowledge their guilt and publicly validate the historical experience of the victims' pain and suffering.
2. Security: The degree to which survivors can orientate themselves toward the future is crucially dependent on their sense of security and corresponding freedom from fear of a return of violence and abuse.
3. Justice: Individual and collective culprits must move beyond acknowledging their guilt and show evidence of being prepared to suffer punishment and/or make reparations.

To these three factors three contextual variables should be added:

• Time enables people to learn how to live with the scars that remain from past events.
• A moral culture of the victims-survivors, which emphasises the interdependency linking all together as part of a common humanity, better equips them to become reconciled to their losses and orientated toward some kind of future coexistence.
• Sustainable reconciliation processes require complementary changes in those political, economic, and social institutions that provided the structures within which the crimes of the past were perpetrated.

Reconciliation after Genocide?

A brief review of some of the postgenocide processes of the last century indicates that there is no common pattern to reconciliation efforts.

Armenian Genocide

Armenians throughout the world agree that there can be no reconciliation with Turkey or the Turkish people until they acknowledge their culpability in the campaign of extermination against the Ottoman Empire's Armenian population during World War I. Various states around the world have acknowledged the crime committed against the Armenians, but there has been no indication that the Turkish authorities are prepared to make the gesture necessary to initiate some kind of reconciliation process.

Cambodian Genocide

Since the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979 Cambodians have struggled to come to terms with their legacy of autogenocide. The challenge Cambodians face is to become reconciled with each other and their own history. For many the principal response to the horrors of the past has been an attempt to simply forget them; some justify such an approach by referring to the beliefs of Buddhism and the moral imperative to avoid "the spirit of revenge," while others are driven by the fear of a return of violence should efforts be made to bring the main perpetrators to trial. This social amnesia was initially facilitated by agreements and amnesties proffered by the Cambodian political elite to the surviving Khmer Rouge leadership in order to preserve a fragile peace within the country. However, with the passage of time and in the face of internal and external pressure the Cambodian regime eventually reached an agreement with the United Nations in 2003 for the establishment of a tribunal to try the surviving senior Khmer Rouge leaders. Many Cambodians continue to ask, though, "Why did we do this to ourselves?"

Rwandan Genocide

Since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 a range of initiatives has attempted to address its legacy and build a new future. Some of the main organizers of the slaughter have been brought before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. By 2001, however, there were still some 120,000 people in Rwanda's prisons awaiting trial for genocide-related offenses. In response the new Rwandan regime began to introduce a form of community-based justice by adapting the traditional conflict resolution process of gacaca. The aim was to promote reconciliation. It is too early to pass judgment on this initiative. However, as historian Mahmood Mamdani has so clearly pointed out, Rwanda's key dilemma remains one of building a democracy that can incorporate a guilty majority alongside a bitter and fearful minority in a single political community. At present to be a Hutu is to be a presumed perpetrator to whom the pursuit of justice seems like victors' revenge. According to Mamdani, the prime prerequisite for reconciliation and a common future in Rwanda is a form of political justice whereby Tutsis relinquish their monopolization of political power rather than continue to hold on to it out of fear of the majority.

Germany and the Holocaust

Following the mass murder of European Jewry and the displacement of the majority of those that survived at the outset, little was done to acknowledge the horror of the slaughter or to create the spaces necessary for survivors to tell their stories. Justice was confined to military trials, internal purges of collaborators in formerly occupied countries, and a de-Nazification program in Germany. Monetary reparations were made to Israel, but the dominant concern seemed to be ensuring that such crimes against humanity would never reoccur. In time, however, interest in the Holocaust grew. In Germany and beyond there are museums, national days of remembrance, educational programs, and many other forms of memorializing the Holocaust. The result has been an expansion of the space available for dialogue within and between the communities that were once so divided. Thus, two generations after the genocide the acknowledgment of the historic crime and the suffering of its victims and survivors, along with efforts at restitution, have helped Jewish communities around the world make a distinction between the culpability of past perpetrators and contemporary generations—a perception necessary for the creation of a shared future in postgenocide societies.

SEE ALSO Armenians in Ottoman Turkey and the Armenian Genocide; Cambodia; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; Reparations

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abu-Nimer, M., ed. (2001). Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.

Bloomfield, D. et al., eds. (2003). Reconciliation after Violent Conflict: A Handbook. Stockholm, Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

du Toit, F., ed. (2003). Learning to Live Together: Practices of Social Reconciliation. Cape Town, South Africa: Institute for Justice and Reconciliation.

Mamdani, Mahmood (2001). When Victims become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism and the Genocide in Rwanda. Oxford, U.K.: James Currey.

Minow, M. (1998). Between Vengeance and Forgiveness. Boston: Beacon Press.

Rigby, A. (2001). Justice and Reconciliation: After the Violence. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner.

Andrew Rigby

RECONCILIATION

The restoration of peaceful or amicable relations between two individuals who were previously in conflict with one another.

Reconciliation ordinarily implies forgiveness for injuries on either or both sides. The term is often applied to the parties to a divorce who cease proceedings for the dissolution of their marriage upon a resolution of their differences. Reconciliation is used interchangeably with conciliation.