Reconciliation Between Groups: Preventing (New) Violence and Improving Lives

Staub, E. (2014). Reconciliation between groups: preventing (new) violence and improving lives. In, Deutsch, M., & Coleman, P. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Third Edition. Jossey-Bass Publishers AbstractAs a background to understanding reconciliation and prevention, this chapter briefly reviews the origins of group/mass violence, the influences that lead to it, focusing on social conditions that frustrate basic psychological needs, and destructive psychological and social processes that attempt to fulfill these needs. Reconciliation and the prevention of violence are overlapping activities. The chapter describes principles and practices that can help groups reconcile, after violence to prevent new violence, and before violence to make violence unlikely. One of these is understanding the origins of violence, its impact, and avenues to prevention and reconciliation. The chapter describes trainings, and educational radio programs used in Rwanda as well as Burundi and the Congo, to further such understanding. Other principles/practices include healing from the impact of victimization, acceptance of the past, and experiences that transform psychological woundedness due to victimization into altruism born of suffering; humanizing the other group; creating constructive ideologies; establishing the complex truth; justice; each group acknowledging and accepting responsibility for the harm it has done; and working to create a shared in place of conflicting histories of the past. Creating just, pluralistic and democratic institutions, is important. So is raising inclusively caring, morally courageous children. Mass violence, reconciliation, psychological needs, pluralistic societies, collective memories and shared histories, constructive ideologies, inclusive caring, socialization,Reconciliation between groups: preventing (new) violence and improving lives Ervin StaubUniversity of Massachusetts at AmherstIn this chapter I will write about reconciliation both after, and before significant violence between groups. Reconciliation between groups that have long been hostile to each other can prevent violence. After significant violence, whether the violence ended through a peace treaty or victory of one side, without reconciliation new violence is highly probable (Long and Brecke, 2003; Staub, 2011). The hostile attitudes toward the other that led to the violence and have intensified in the course of it are still there. Reconciliation may be defined as mutual acceptance by two groups of each other (Staub and Pearlman, 2001), and “the societal structures and processes directly involved in the development and maintenance of such acceptance…..Genuine acceptance means trust in and positive attitude toward the other, and sensitivity to and consideration of the other party’s needs and interests.” (Staub and Bar-Tal, 2003, p. 733). “Reconciliation also means that in people’s minds the past does not define the future. It means that members of previously hostile groups can engage in actions that represent and further create positive coexistence“ (Staub, 2011). Most definitions, like ours, focus on relationships, whether between individuals or groups, for example, “restoration of trust in an interpersonal relationship through mutual trustworthy behaviors” (Worthington and Drinkard, 2000, p. 93). To the extent reconciliation addresses inequitable relations between parties, it can lead to a new moral and political framework and “mutual legitimacy” (Rouhana, 2010). The practices and institutions that foster reconciliation fulfill basic psychological needs and are likely to create a peaceful society.Reconciliation is progressive, with likely setbacks. For example, Israeli collective narrative has increasingly acknowledged that one of the reasons that about 700 thousand Palestinians left Israel during the 1948 war was expulsion, whether by force or pressure. This shift from the earlier narrative that they all left due to their leaders telling them to do so for the duration of the fighting, or because they wanted to escape danger, facilitates reconciliation. The number of Israelis who accepted this narrative or collective memory increased over time, but it then decreased in the course of the violence of the second In- tifada between 2000 and 2005, the second Palestinian uprising (Nets-Zehngut & Bar-Tal, 2011). There can be reversals in other elements of reconciliation as well, whether forgiveness or positive attitude toward the other.Arie Nadler and Nurit Schnabel (2008), Israeli psychologists, differentiated between instrumental and socio-emotional reconciliation. Instrumental reconciliation refers to cooperation to achieve common goals, socio-emotional reconciliation to the admission of past wrongdoing and subsequent forgiveness. The practices that promote the former include contact, that is, engagement or working together, the essence of the latter is an “apology-forgiveness” cycle. This is a worthwhile distinction, although I see the two types as overlapping. After significant violence that deeply wounds people the capacity to cooperate for shared goals is an initial step. Without emotional reconciliation, without addressing psychological woundedness, fear and anger, new threat or changing conditions can bring an end to cooperation and lead to renewed violence. However, the practices that contribute to either type of reconciliation also contribute to the other. Significant contact in the course of cooperation can humanize the other, reduce fear of the other, and make forgiveness more likely. Reconciliation requires that people engage with what happened during past violence. Bert Ingaelare (2008) wrote that the gacaca, the community justice process in which well over a hundred thousand accused perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda were tried between 2001 and 2010, broke down the amnesia that already began to charac- terize Rwandan life, as people settled down to “normal” everyday relations—to coexistence required by circumstances. We can see such “amnesia” as psychological defense, in people who have to live together and feel it is dangerous to address the past, emotionally, and practically in engagement with each other. The origins of violence and basic psychological needs. The frustration of universal, basic psychological needs is a core influence in leading to violence between groups. Violence in turn deeply frustrates such basic needs. Prac- tices and conditions that help to constructively fulfill these needs contribute to reconciliation and lasting peace. Difficult social conditions in a society are one starting point for an evolution that can lead to genocide or mass killing, or intensify conflict between groups. Such conditions include economic deterioration, political chaos, very great social change, and especially their combination. They often frustrate material needs, but even more universally frustrate basic, universal, psychological needs, for security, feelings of effectiveness and control over important goals, autonomy and choice, positive identity, connections to other people, and a comprehension of reality and of one’s place in the world (Staub, 1989, 2003, 2011). Certain cultural characteristics, that can be present in societies to different extents, are another potential influence. A history of devaluation of some subgroup of society “preselects” this group as a likely scapegoat or ideological enemy. Past victimization of the group and psychological woundedness makes the group feel vulnerable, the world seem dangerous, and can lead to hostility and unnecessary “defensive” violence. Overly strong respect for authority makes it less likely that people speak out against destructive leaders. In difficult times members of a group often blame or scapegoat a previously devalued group for life problems. They create a vision of a hopeful future for their group, an ideology that is destructive in that it identifies enemies that stand in the way of the ideology’s fulfillment, usually the scapegoated group. These processes fulfill frustrated needs for identity, effectiveness, community, and understanding of reality. But they do so destructively, as they lead to turning against and harming others (Staub, 1989, 2003, 2011). Without restraining conditions and forces (especially active bystanders) there tends to be an evolution of increasing harmdoing and violence.Another starting point for the evolution of intense violence is group conflict (Fe- ing, 1993), especially conflict that becomes intractable—persistent, resisting resolution, and violent. Intractable conflict also frustrates basic needs. It is often maintained by ideology, as well as by people seeing their own cause and group as right and moral, and the other as responsible and immoral (Bar-Tal, 2000; Kelman and Fisher, 2003). Over time the groups often come to see each other as implacable enemies. Anything good that happens to the other group is seen as harmful to one’s own group. I have called this kind of enmity an “ideology of antagonism.” (Staub, 1989, 2011). “Instigating conditions” and the violence that evolves out of them have destructive effects not only on victims, but also on perpetrators and members of the perpetrator group who passively stand by. In contrast the processes of reconciliation in Table 1 help fulfill basic needs constructively. They enhance feelings of security, the belief by people in their capacity of influence events, fulfill the need for a positive identity, create connections within and between groups and help develop a new, positive understanding of the world. Security and reconciliation. The question has been raised in the literature whether reconciliation can begin when there is still ongoing violence. In the Eastern part of the Congo (DRC) starting in 1996 (Prunier, 2009; Staub, 2011) millions of people died due to violence and accompanying disease and starvation. Huge numbers of women were raped. To a lesser but still substantial degree the violence is continuing in 2013. Fear and mistrust create a challenge for effective reconciliation processes. The ongoing violence and the insecurity it creates interfere with healing from past violence, an important element in reconciliation. None- theless, even in such a situation public education in the form of educational radio programs, and accompanying “grass roots activities” such as the training of conflict resolution agents using the principles guiding educational radio, can build underpinnings for reconciliation (Staub, 2011—see below). In conflicts with less chaotic conditions and less widespread violence, small groups of people from the two sides have engaged with each other. Engagement between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, and contact and dialogue in many settings between Palestinians and Jewish Israelis, most likely limited the level of violence—and have created the basis on which further reconciliation practices can build (See Staub, 2011 for an overview). Insert Table 1 about hereThe principles and practices of reconciliation.In the following, I will discuss the principles and practices of reconciliation that I consider especially important. They are presented in Table 1. In discussing the first two of these, I will briefly review the work that my associates and I have been doing in Rwanda, starting in 1999, and then in Burundi and the Congo, to promote reconciliation and help prevent further or renewed violence. Understanding the roots of violence and avenues to prevention and reconciliation.Understanding the conditions that lead to violence, and the impact of violence, can provide a useful framework for people to work on both prevention and reconciliation.It can lead them to resist these influences, to respond to them in ways that makes violence less likely. It can lead them to use their “critical consciousness,” their own judgment in evaluating the meaning of events. It can lead to active bystandership in the service of prevention, reconciliation and peace building. After violence, understanding how it came about can contribute to healing. In the genocide in Rwanda, in 1994, about 700 hundred thousand Tutsis were killed by Hutus—parts of the military, young men in militias (the Interehamwe), as well as neighbors and even relatives in mixed families. About 50 thousand Hutus were also killed, because they were politically moderate, or opposed the genocide, or as it happens when violence becomes widespread, because of personal enmity (des Forges, 1999; Melvern, 2004; Mamdani, 2001; Staub, 2011). Starting in 1998 and ongoing, my associates and I have conducted two types of “interventions” in Rwanda to promote reconciliation and help prevent new violence, and conducted research to evaluate their impact (for a detailed description, see Staub, 2011). We first conducted workshops and trainings, lasting from two days to two weeks, with varied groups. The first training was with the staff of local organizations that worked with groups in the community, A central element in all trainings was information about how genocide originates (based primarily on Staub, 1989, as briefly reviews above). We described the influences that lead to genocide and other intense violence between groups, and provided examples of these from varied instances, except Rwanda. In the course of extensive discussion, the participants applied these concepts to Rwanda. Other elements of the trainings included information about the impact of violence on people, and about the role of basic human needs in the origins of genocide, in woundedness, and in healing. We evaluated the effects of the approach primarily not on the participants, but on people once removed from the training, members of newly created community groups (Staub, Pearlman, Gubin and Hagengimana, 2005). Training participants and these groups included both Tutsis and Hutus. The community groups were led in twice a week meetings, for two hours, over a two month period, either by facilitators we trained (integrated groups), or by facilitators we did not train (traditional groups), or received no training (control groups). There were many groups, controlled for various characteristics, in each of these three conditions. Treatment group members showed positive changes from before the training to two months after the end of the training, and greater changes than the changes in the traditional and control groups from before the training to two month afterwards. These changes included increased understanding of the complex origins of genocide, more positive attitudes by Hutus and Tutsis toward each other, “conditional forgiveness” –expressing the willingness to forgive if perpetrators acknowledge what they did and/or ask forgiveness—and reduction in trauma symptoms (Staub et al., 2005).Knowledge of the influences that lead to group violence seemed to become “experiential understanding,” deeply held, as people applied the information they received to the genocide in Rwanda, and thereby to their own experience. Such understanding can be an avenue to healing. In addition to the reduction of trauma symptoms by members of community groups, when the participants in our training were exposed to examples of group violence around the world, seeing that others had experiences similar to their own they seemed to feel reincluded in the human realm (“so God did not select us for such punishment”). (Staub et al., 2005). Understanding the influences that lead to mass violence also seemed to humanize Hutus, members of the group that perpetrated the genocide, both in the eyes of Tutsis, and in their own eyes. Seeing that understandable human processes can lead to terrible acts made it less likely that members of either group viewed perpetrators as simply evil. By reducing defensiveness, this makes it more likely that members of the perpetrator group accept responsibility for their group’s actions, an important contributor to forgiveness and reconciliation. In all these ways, understanding can initiate and contribute to reconciliation. It can also increase people’s ability to foresee the long term consequences of events, including destructive leadership, and increase their resistance to them emotionally and as active bystanders, thereby preventing violence (Staub, 2011). In subsequent years, we conducted separate trainings with national leaders, with journalists, with community leaders, and also trained trainers in our approach (Staub, 2011; Staub and Pearlman, 2006; Staub et al, 2010). In these trainings we also introduced information about avenues to prevention and reconciliation. In the training with national leaders we used separate tables of origins and prevention that are partly summarized in Table 1. One side of the Table showed the influences that lead to violence (or inhibit reconciliation), the other side those that prevent violence (or promote reconciliation). At the end of the training we had leaders in groups of three evaluate whether policies they just introduced would make violence more likely, or help prevent violence. Within the training, they did this highly effectively. To expand the reach of this approach, we developed educational radio programs, in collaboration with a Dutch NGO, LaBenevolencija, which produces the programs. The central aims again were to help listeners understand the influences that lead to violence between group, how extreme violence such as genocide evolves, psychological woundedness, and avenues to healing, reconciliation and prevention. Our first program, a radio drama, Musekeweya (New Dawn), which began to broadcast in Rwanda in 2004 and is still continuing, has become extremely popular. It is a story of two villages in conflict, with attacks, counterattacks, destructive leaders and followers, positive bystanders, a love story between two young people from the two villages in conflict, a village fool who is also a wise man and a truth teller, and more. The educational content is embedded in the story and in the actions of the characters (Staub, 2011; Staub et al., 2010). For example, the story aims to promote community healing, as people empathically listen to each other’s painful stories and support each other. Over time in the radio drama the people in the two villages move toward reconciliation.An evaluation at the end of the first year (with a complex design due to the fact that the program aired nationally) showed a variety of significant effects. In comparison to a control group in which people listened to a radio program about health, treatment group members expressed more empathy with everyone—survivors, perpetrators, leaders.They expressed, and showed in behavior, greater willingness to speak what they believe. They also showed greater independence of authority, a willingness to discuss issues and make decisions for themselves (Paluck, 2009; Staub, 2011; Staub and Pearlman, 2009). The educational radio dramas and other radio programs were expanded to Burun- di beginning in 2005, and to the Congo in 2006. While it is important to develop general principles of prevention and reconciliation, they need to be applied with sensitivity to particular contexts (Staub, 2011). The situation in the Congo is highly complex. Many groups, motivated by varied factors, have been involved in violence (Prunier, 2009, Staub, 2011). The government and military are highly dysfunctional. The radio drama aimed to apply the conceptual elements of the educational approach to the existing conditions in Burundi and the Congo. Evaluation studies found positive effects in Burundi, and more complex effects in the Congo, mostly positive but not on all dimensions (Bilali, et al., 2011). The limitation on the effects of the radio drama may have been due to the chaotic and insecure conditions in the Congo. However, the evaluation also showed what may have been too much conflict between groups within the radio drama, which in the context of ongoing violence could be responsible for the less positive effects. These findings of the evaluation now inform the continued development of the radio drama in the Congo. Understanding the impact of violence on survivors, perpetrators and bystanders.Both the trainings and the radio programs aimed to foster understanding of the impact of violence on groups and individuals. One of the influences leading to violence by a group is past victimization of the group. It creates a feeling of vulnerability, seeing the world as dangerous, and may generate hostility to the world. When there is new conflict or other instigating conditions, previously victimized groups are more likely to respond with violence which they see as defensive—but which may be unnecessary, making them into perpetrators. At times victimization and unhealed trauma becomes a persistent aspect of the group’s culture and identity. Such “chosen traumas,” as Vamik Volkan (2011) called them, shape the perceptions of and responses to new events (Staub 1998, 2011). Understanding the impact of violence is an important beginning step on the road to healing, and can motivate activities that promote healing. It helps people interpret certain emotions and actions of their own and others’ as the result of psychological woundedness and/or the way woundedness is passed down to children. This can improve social interactions and people’s quality of life. Seeing children as traumatized is likely to lead to more constructive reactions to them than seeing them as disobedient and bad. From the standpoint of both positive social relations and reconciliation it is important to understand that engaging in violence is also wounding (McNair, 2002; Staub, 2011), as is to some extent remaining passive in the face of it. Even soldiers fighting wars are psychologically wounded (Maguen, Metzler, Litz, Seal, Knight & Marmar, 2009), and more so if they have perpetrated atrocities by killing civilians (McNair, 2002). The relatively new concept of moral injury was proposed because of the widespread psychological woundedness of soldiers returning from the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, a result of killing, witnessing killing, or being unable to take actions in situation when their fel- low soldiers are killed (Litz, Stein, Delaney, Lebowitz,, Nash, Silva & Maguen, 2009). Perpetrators of group violence and passive bystanders are thus likely to be wounded; at the very least they undergo personal transformation as they justify violence, increasingly devalue victims, and experience less empathy with their suffering. This lessening of empathy over time tends generalize to other people as well, partly explaining the frequent expansion of group violence to new targets.Healing the wounds of all parties.Healing by survivors can lessen their feelings of vulnerability, their perception of the world as dangerous, and open them to increasing engagement at least with members of the perpetrator group, and over time even with actual perpetrators. Healing by perpetrators and passive members of the perpetrator group can diminish their (usually unacknowledged) guilt and shame (Staub and Pearlman, 2006), which may be limited at the time of the violence but can become more intense as the violence is brought to an end and the world points to the immorality and horror of their actions (Nadler et al., 2008; Staub, 2011, 2012). In order to heal, survivors of violence need to talk about their experiences (Pen- nebacker, 2000), ideally to empathic others (Herman, 1992; Pearlman and Saakvitne, 1995). Rather than individual therapy, healing in groups is usually preferable, or even necessary. After group violence usually huge numbers of people are psychologically wounded, and there are few resources available for healing. In addition, the violence was perpetrated by members of one group against members of another; and the culture may be collectivist, so that connection to the group is of special importance. Because of the widespread psychological woundedness, we have advocated in our workshops and in educational radio programs person to person engagement, people talking to each other about their experiences and providing support to each other. Doing this in a group setting can be especially beneficial (Herman, 1992; Staub and Pearlman, 2006). For example, in a religious community in Rwanda, Solace ministries, people give testimonies, describe their experiences during the genocide in front of the community, with others supporting them. Commemorations are also important for healing. However, they are likely to work best if in addition to remembering the violence and their losses, and grieving, which by themselves can maintain psychological wounds, they point to the possibility of a better future. They can do this, for example, by including in remembrance “rescuers,” members of the perpetrator group who saved lives, or attempted to save lives, endangering their own (Africa Rights, 2000; Oliner and Oliner, 1988; Staub, 2011). This can show the possibility of living together in peace, as members of both groups are reminded that there have been caring and courageous people in the perpetrator group. Commemorations of mass violence will ideally including honoring rescuers. Empathy with perpetrators can contribute to their healing. It is daunting, of course, to feel and express empathy with perpetrators of extreme violence. One example of engagement with and over time empathy with a perpetrator seemingly leading to his regret about his actions was the conversations/interviews between Pumla Gobodo-Madik- izela and De Kirk, a notorious killer in the South African apartheid system (Gobodo- Madikizela, 2003). Including members of the perpetrator group in commemoration, and over time as it becomes psychologically possible even perpetrators, can also contribute to the healing of all parties. An aspect of healing important for both prevention and reconciliation is explo- ration within a group of past victimization, psychological woundedness of the group, and the extent the culture has maintained or even built itself around past traumas. Wounded- nesss can be handed down through the generations, and shape perceptions of and responses to events (Volkan, 2001; Vollhardt, 2012). Gaining “societal self-awareness” is likely to lessen the impact of past trauma on group life and call attention to the need for healing (Staub, 2011). An aspect of healing and community building is the reintegration of harmdoers into the community and productive civilian life. There are many different kinds of harmdoers, ranging from child soldiers who were abducted or enticed into rebel groups and often were led to engage in violence against their own communities, to adult perpetrators-- of violence, rape and genocide. Some can only be reintegrated into the community after appropriate justice processes and punishment, while others, such as child soldiers, may not need to be punished. Depending on who they are and what they have done, and on the culture, different processes of reintegration are required. Often a combination of Western and traditional approaches are used. For example, in Angola and elsewhere, to reintegrate them into the community child soldiers are led to engage with the spirit of an- cestors (Wessells, 2007). In another example, the community providing the opportunity to talk about their experiences, to work and study, and to live in a community of their own, has led a group of former child soldiers to become a constructive group that helps others (Myers, 2008). While some individuals and groups that have been victimized have a propensity to turn against others, there are people who have been victimized who want to help those who have suffered, and prevent others’ suffering. An important aspect of reconciliation and stable peace is to learn how to develop what I have called altruism born of suffering (Staub, 2003, 2005b; Staub and Vollhardt, 2009), so that those who have suffered become agents of positive change. Positive experiences in childhood, others reaching out at times of persecution and violence to its targets, intended victims acting in their own behalf and/or helping others, can all mitigate the negative effects of victimization. Healing practices, caring and support by other people and the world after suffering harm, strong human connections, and people who have been harmed beginning to help others so that they“learn by doing,” can all contribute to altruism born of suffering. Humanizing the other, developing a positive orientation to the other. Among the influences leading to violence between groups differentiating between“us” and “them” and devaluing “them” is a central one. Moreover, devaluation increases in the course of the violence, as harmdoers justify their actions, exclude the other from the moral and human realm, and even come to see killing their victim as right (Fein, 1993; Opotow; 1990; Staub, 1989, 2011). Humanizing the other, developing a more positive orientation to the other, is a crucial aspect of reconciliation and prevention. Others can be humanized by words: what people say about them, what they write about them. This is likely to be especially effective if the words refer to real and significant positive actions of the other, for example, Hutus saving the lives of Tutsis. Or if they show communality in the lives of people, such as Macedonian journalists from different ethnic groups together interviewing and writing in their newspapers about the lives of people belonging to those groups (Burg,1997). Print media, radio and television can all humanize members of groups. Symbolic acts are also important, such as Arafat and Rabin shaking hands, or Willy Brandt, the Chancellor of Germany, kneeling at Auschwitz and asking forgiveness. Contact has an important role in overcoming devaluation and coming to see the other’s humanity (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2066), especially significant, deep contact (Deutsch, 1973; Staub, 2011). Its varied forms can include working on joint projects, such as cooperative learning in schools (Aronson et al., 1978), building houses together (Wessells and Montiero, 2001), deep engagement between Hindus and Muslims in work settings (Varshney, 2002), or persistent dialogue, for example by Israeli and Palestinian leaders (Staub, 2011). Even imagined contact can promote positive attitudes (Crisp & Turner, 2009), and give a positive start for actual contact. I have referred already to the importance of active bystandership. To create social change requires people joining together, building connections and networks (Thalhammer et al. 2007). This is necessary to create and maintain motivation, as well as to exert influence. However, single individuals sometimes have a dramatic role in limiting violence as well as initiating positive processes (Staub, 2011). An example of this is Joe Darby, who was instrumental in making public the photos of the treatment of prison inmates at Abu Ghraib. Another example is a women who for a period of time settled in and studied the conflictual and potentially violent conditions in a community in Poland. She found that one segment of the community had access to most of its resources, and two groups, young disorderly and aggressive youth, and old people, were excluded from social processes. She organized the young people to collect recipes of traditional dishes from the old people, which they gathered in a book. The book was a success, and a later more for- mal edition an even greater success (Praszkier, et al., 2010). Contact and cooperation changed attitudes toward the other, and significantly affected the way the young people related to the world, benefiting the community as a whole. Each of the contributors to reconciliation listed in Table 1 can have multiple effects. Understanding the influences that have led to violence, healing, and other influences can contribute to more positive attitudes towards members of the other group. Establishing (the complex) truth. Truth is essential for survivors. Their society and/or the world establishing what was done to them, and proclaiming that the violence and victimization should not have happened, acknowledges their suffering, confirms their experience and affirms the moral order. It thereby increases survivors’ feelings of security. Establishing the truth is also important to make it less likely that perpetrators deny their actions, or claim that they had justifiable reasons such as self-defense, or that they were the victims. While the truth can sometimes be simple, often it is complex. Both sides may have been violent. Or actions in the past by one side may have contributed to later violence by the other side, as in Rwanda (Mamdani, 2001, Staub, 2011). But perpetrators tend to deny or justify their actions, and even when the violence is clearly one sided, the two sides usually have different narratives or “truths.” The history of events is sometimes established through documents, and testimonies during trials, such as of German leaders at Nuremberg. The aim of the people’s tribunals in Rwanda, the gacaca, was also both truth and justice. Offering testimony often has negative emotional consequences for witnesses. The gacaca that took place in many locations, in front of local communities, with a large majority of the people Hutus, including the relatives of those who were being judged. The difficulty was even greater for Hutu than Tutsi witnesses, who probably felt that they betrayed their group. In addition to the emotional difficulty of talking about painful events in front of hostile people, there was often harassment before, during and after providing testimony (Broneus, 2008). It has become common to use truth commissions, which interview many people and provide a report of events. An early example was Nunca Mas (1986), the report on the “disappearances” in Argentina in the late 1970s. The Truth and Reconciliation Com- mission in South Africa powerfully showed what the apartheid regime did. This had little effect on black people, who were the victims of the apartheid regime, but it contributed to reconciliation by affecting whites (Gibson, 2004), who either did not know or avoided knowing the violence of the apartheid regime. Processes to change collective memories and move toward shared views of history.Differing and conflicting views of history, usually each party blaming the other, are usually deeply held (Newbury, 1998), and are a likely source of new violence. Seeing the other as the one responsible maintains fear and antagonism. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it has been difficult for people to engage with and seriously consider the other’s narrative (Staub, 2011). But exposing Israeli high school students to both sides’ narratives in a conflict removed from their own, the Northern Irish conflict, increased their ability to take the Palestinian perspective (Salomon, 2004). We have also found in our training in Rwanda that giving examples from other countries was useful. Establishing who did what can move the two groups toward a shared narrative. The “new historians” in Israel, using historical documents, showed that Palestinians did not all leave voluntarily, that in part they were expelled in the course of the 1948 war (Morris, 1989, 2004). Autobiographical writings, by soldiers and other witnesses describ- ing their experiences at the time, supported the new history (Nets-Zehngut, 2009). These were published many years after the events, due to a combination of government censor- ship and loyalty to the country that made people unwilling to write about questionable Is- raeli actions. Open communication in a society, and positive active bystandership—an aspect of which is telling the truth-- contribute to peacemaking. Four studies with groups of Palestinians living all around the region also showed that contrary to the dominant Palestinian narrative, especially by leaders, while there was expulsion it was not the only or even the primary reason for the Palestinian exodus. Many left because of fighting at or near their villages, as well as other reasons (Nets-Zehngut, 2011). Collective memory consists not only of facts, but also of their interpretation. Groups often claim that their violent acts were necessary self-defense. Dialogue and negotiation between parties can shape their interpretation of events, and in domains where no common ground is found, at least acknowledge the other’s view of history. Moving toward a shared history can benefit from commissions composed of representatives of the two parties, as well as dialogue within populations (Staub, 2011). However, when the parties reach a limit in the extent they are able to create a shared history, a related task is to accept that they have different views of events—when neither view is clearly historically incorrect or morally unacceptable. It would indicate a significant level of reconciliation by Israelis and Palestinians if they taught in their schools some version of both groups’ views of the history of their conflict. Justice processesThere have been arguments among scholars and practitioners, some stressing the importance of human rights and justice, others claiming that punishment interferes with reconciliation and peace. I see justice as an integral part of reconciliation. It balances the relationship between members of perpetrator and victim groups, and reestablishes a moral order. But the punishment of perpetrators is only one form of justice. Another is perpetrators or their group participating in restoring society. In Rwanda many perpetrators are sentenced to community labor. Working to compensate victims, at least by helping to re- build society, is one meaning of restorative justice. Another, which is increasingly prac- ticed in crimes committed against individuals and is beginning to be used in cases of group violence, is to bring the parties together so that perpetrators can apologize and express regret. This requires a readiness by both parties, and has beneficial effects on both victims and harmdoers (Strang et al., 2007). One potential problem after group violence is unequal justice. After the genocide about one and a half million Hutus streamed out of Rwanda into Zaire, now the Congo (DRC), including many of the perpetrators. These genocidaires then conducted raids into Rwanda, killing more Tutsis. Just as at the time of the genocide, the international community did nothing. The new Rwandan army invaded the Congo twice to fight these genocidaires, but it also killed a very large number of Hutu civilians. The justice processes in Rwanda have only addressed crimes of Hutus during the genocide, and not these crimes of the Tutsi led army. Countries that forego justice processes tend to return to them after some period of time. In Argentina perpetrators of the disappearances in the late 1970s received blanket pardons. This led to persistent distress and protests in segments of the population. As a result amnesty laws have been overturned and the prosecution of harmdoers began more than 20 years after their deeds (Burchanti, 2004). In Cambodia after the genocide in the late 1970s a tribunal began its work only in 2009, with the first sentence of a perpetrator in 2010. Economic justice is also very important. Tutsi survivor women in Kigali said at a hearing in 1999 as the Unity and Reconciliation Commission began its work: ‘we lost ev- erything, cannot feed our children, cannot pay for their schooling, and need economic compensation.’ One aspect of economic justice is to help those devastated by violence. This often happens only minimally. In South Africa, victims received much less compensation than initially promised by the TRC (Byrne, 2004). In Rwanda, a poor country, they also have not received sufficient help.Another aspect of economic justice is addressing inequalities, often a primary source of conflict and violence (Fein, 1993). This requires psychological change in attitudes by the more powerful toward the less powerful, and an accompanying change in le- gitimizing ideologies that justify group differences in access and privilege (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). Only then is it likely that institutions will be created that provide equal access for all groups to society’s resources. Equal access may also require practices that address the consequences of a past history, whether differentness or discrimination, such as helping immigrant groups like Muslims in European countries to acculturate (Staub, 2007, 2011), Moving toward forgivenessForgiveness means letting go of anger, the desire for revenge, and moving toward an increasingly positive view of, and acceptance of the party that harmed oneself or the people one cares about (McCullough, Finchman, & Tasang, 2003 ; Worthington,2005; Staub, 2011). Forgiveness is an aspect of reconciliation, central to which is mutual acceptance. But forgiveness is one sided: it comes from the party that is harmed, victimized, injured. Forgiveness by victims after intense victimization is extremely difficult. Howev- er, it is much more likely if harmdoers, or the group they come from, acknowledge their actions, the harm they have caused, express regret, apologize and show empathy with their victims or the survivors of their violence. The joining of acknowledgement and progressive forgiveness is then a mutual process, which is the essence of reconciliation. Private forgiveness, with its element of letting go of pain, can bring relief to people who suffered. But one sided public forgiveness can be dangerous. Violence creates an imbalance in the relationship between harmdoers and victims. While publicly forgiving people who have not acknowledged and showed regret for their actions can sometimes make further harmful action by them less likely, this is more probable if there has been no intense hostility between the parties (Wallace, Exline & Baumeister, 2008), or if their power to harm has diminished. It can, instead, increase the imbalance in the relationship, and embolden perpetrators, leading to more violence (Staub, 2005a, 2011). The conditions under which unconditional or one sided forgiveness by those who were harmed moves groups toward peaceful relations, rather than new violence, requires further research. Usually, it is a combination of processes that effectively promote reconciliation. For example, forgiveness is more likely after some degree of healing and in the context of, or after appropriate justice processes (Deutsch, 2008). In our research, soon after the genocide, without yet a justice process, we thought it unreasonable to expect that people would forgive. It is for that reason that we measured “conditional forgiveness” (Staub et al., 2005). As I noted, with many reconciliation processes there can be reversals, as there was in the Israeli public’s view of the “new history” in the course of the second Intifada. Immacule Ilibigaza (Ilibagiza & Erwin, 2006) described in her memoir forgiving the Hutu killers while still in hiding from them. But when she went back to her village where all except one other member of her family was killed, it took her time and effort to recap- ture the feeling of forgiveness. Acknowledgement, apology, regret, empathy by perpetrators or their group.Acknowledgment of suffering—by perpetrators, bystanders, the rest of the world—is likely to contribute to healing. But perpetrators tend to deny what they did, or justify their actions as necessary self-defense or in other ways. The devaluation of victims, or opponents in a violent conflict, that is normally present from the start and intensifies in the course of the evolution of increasing violence, does not disappear when the violence stops. Members of groups that have engaged in violence often continue to blame victims or opponents, and hold on to a destructive ideology that made the other the enemy. These tendencies may be enhanced by guilt and shame that is unacknowledged (Staub, 2011; see also earlier section on healing). However, feeling affirmed can led people to acknowledge the harm their group has done. When Israelis, and Serbs in Bosnia, were led to focus on experiences that affirmed them, they were more likely to both acknowledge their group’s responsibility for harmful actions and support reparations for them (Cehajic-Clancy et al., 2011; see also Nadler and Schnabel, 2008). And after their group was affirmed participants in several studies were more willing to accept shame and guilt for harmful actions by their group--- e.g. Canadians for their treatment of Aboriginals (Gunn & Wilson, 2011). Healing also strengthens the self and presumably makes acknowledgment more possible (Staub, 2013).The multiple processes in reconciliation. Practices of reconciliation usually involve a combination and intermingling of elements. As an example, consider a project in Sierra Leone of Fambul Tok, “Family Talk,” a community organization that has designed ways of engaging people with each other. “Under a tree, or in other settings, organizers, ex-combatants, and victims/community members sit around a bonfire. Religious leaders start the meeting, saying, ‘If you have done something wrong, come forward, tell about it, apologize to the family of the people harmed, and the whole community.’ Confess to a person who never knew who killed his or her son that you did it. The spirit of these meetings is that the truth is cleansing and can be the beginning of reconciliation. This is followed by engaging people, killers and survivors, in varied activities. Some are recreational, such as a soccer match, followed by dialogue. In others people work together, for example, to replenish stock. Others are community forums that people initiate. In still others, sitting under a tree, they talk through how to engage in acts that contribute to reconciliation — such as having worn a blue shirt while killing someone’s parents, and not wearing blue when visiting that person.” (Staub, 2011, p . 485). In Sierra Leone violent groups not only killed but also maimed many people, cut- ting off arms or other body parts. One of the activities of Fambul Tok has been to bring perpetrators together with survivors whose family members they killed, and the communities in which they killed people. This also is a multifaceted process, more so than it looks on the surface. The public aspect of it is to bring a perpetrator to a community and face to face with a survivor who seemingly miraculously forgives him in front of the community (Fambul Tok, 2012) . But there is a great deal of both preparation, working with the perpetrator, the community, and the individual who publicly forgives, as well as follow up. Over time the symbolic act of forgiveness turns into real reconciliation. In this process some perpetrators become agents of reconciliation. Progressively increasing acceptance of the past.Letting go of the past, not dwelling in pain, is an important contributor to reconciliation. This view comes from my experience in the field. Acceptance of the past does not mean forgetting. It requires healing, is furthered by understanding, but may precede forgiving. Accepting is a psychological state or attitude that says: ‘This is what happened to us, this has been our life, this is who we are. But our past does not dictate our future. We can use what we learned from the past wisely, not be a slave or victim of it.’ It is one of the things that Palestinians and Israelis seem to have difficulty with (Staub, 2011). At least some Palestinians cannot accept the state of Israel, a well established entity, and the loss of the homes of their grandparents or parents, and/or their suffering as refugees and having lived under occupation. At least some Israelis cannot move beyond all the Jewish victimization in the past, and the terrorist attacks on them and Arab hostility toward them over the years. Although in a dominant position relative to Palestinians, they cannot live enough in the present and future to trust reconciliation with Palestinians and engage in actions that can lead to it. Both groups also hold on to destructive ideologies that interfere with peace. Destructive ideology versus constructive ideologies.Ideologies are visions of social arrangements, and of relationships between groups and individuals. In the face of difficult social conditions new ideologies tend to emerge, visions of the future to be created, which provide hope for their group. These visions, and joining together in an ideological movement, help fulfill needs for effectiveness, community, identity, and an understanding of reality. However, they are often destructive, as they identify enemies who stand in the way of the fulfillment of the ideology—the creation of the better future. These ideologies are powerful motivators of violence against the identi- fied enemy. Among some Palestinians, in particular Hamas, a continuing vision is the elimina- tion of Israel (and perhaps of Jewish Israelis) and the creation of a Palestinian state in its place. Among some Israelis, the destructive ideology is the recreation of historical Greater Israel, which includes the West Bank, with the Palestinians who live there stand- ing in the way. Reconciliation requires moving from destructive to constructive ideologies in which the vision of the hopeful future includes all groups. This makes it possible for all groups to join in working for the ideology’s fulfillment. Such a shared vision for Palestinian and Israelis can include, minimally, two states in an economic community living in peace, this benefiting the region and making terrorism less likely (Staub, 2011). Political conditions, and reconciliation: Pluralistic, fair and democratic institutions. What are the institutionalized practices and institutions that promote reconciliation, or interfere with it and with one of its primary aims, a peaceful society? As I discuss them I will provide examples for some of them from Rwanda. Pluralism, the free flow of ideas, and the access of all groups to the public space, all groups having a voice, are essential for reconciliation and lasting peace. Sometimes reconciliation processes and the societal/political context are at odds with each other. For example, in Rwanda, the government advocates reconciliation and promotes certain reconciliation processes. At the same time it holds an “ideology of unity,” that there are only Rwandans, not Hutus and Tutsis. In the name of unity it discourages references to Hutus and Tutsis. There are laws that can lead to jail sentences for vaguely defined “divisionism,” and advocating genocidal ideologies, also vaguely defined. This limits the free expression of ideas, and the discussion of issues between Tutsis and Hutus (Prunier, 2009; Staub, 2011). Limits on press freedom and on the expression of varied views limit political processes. It is a free and active press that enables people to make their own judgment about events and advocate for political views and parties. The government limits political opposition in other ways as well. This may be in part because Tutsis, about 15%of the population, still fear Hutus, about 84 % of the population, and in part because once in power governments in countries that have not developed democratic institutions resist yielding power. Democratic political institutions mean a free press, civic institutions that involve people in the political process, and free elections. These create trust that through proper representation of the different groups in the population conflicts can be peacefully resolved. In societies with subgroups of very different sizes, with each holding on to its identity, constitutions are needed that provide for representing the interests of each group.External bystander working together with internal groups can be helpful in this. In Mace- donia, external NGOs developed ideas that were used in creating a new constitution that helped address some of the issues between ethnic groups (Burg, 1997). The U.S. Depart- ment of Justice provided such help in Rwanda. Other important institutions are the police and the justice system. To create a peaceful society, there needs to be equal justice regard- less of group differences in wealth and power, and accountability for violent and criminal conduct. Even better is the prevention of such conduct. For example, the Rwandan government carefully monitors the behavior of its leaders to prevent corruption. I have discussed earlier the importance of economic justice. In Rwanda new laws attempt to create equality of opportunity—in access to education and jobs. The fast economic development of Rwanda (Kinzer, 2008) has increased differences in wealth between segments of the population, as it usually happens in cases of speedy economic development in poor countries. But equal access to opportunity, especially if it becomes increasingly de facto, can create trust in the system.Psychological changes and the development of institutions are intertwined. Mem- bers of each group, especially powerful groups, need to increasingly see the humanity of other groups in order to be motivated to establish institutions that treat people equally. Such institutions in turn further change attitudes and values. Just as violence and the institutions that serve it evolve progressively, so do the processes and institutions that serve reconciliation and peace. The presence of the psychological conditions I described and their social manifes- tations (e.g. positive attitudes toward other groups, some degree of healing, constructive ideology) and constructive institutions can together be used to assess the level of reconciliation in a society and the prospects for peace. In summary, these institutions include a free press, civic institutions that promote political participation by all groups, free elections, a law abiding and fair police, a justice system that addresses both present and past crimes, the absence of corruption, lack of discrimination in access to education and jobs, and a culture and social system that makes equal opportunity real. Public education about conflict and conflict resolution. Even if the processes of prevention and reconciliation, described above, are effective, especially in plural societies conflicts between subgroups of societies can emerge. In addition, even after healing processes and more positive attitudes by groups toward each other, great past violence leaves in its wake psychological vulnerabilities. These can emerge and have strong effects under newly developing difficult life conditions or group conflict. Understanding this can serve, to some degree, as inoculation against its happening. Creating fair and democratic institutions, and knowledge and skills to prevent and or address conflict can build confidence, lessening the impact of challenging conditions as well as enabling groups to peacefully deal with them. Lederach (1997) has written about downward influence, the influence of leaders on the population, upward influence, the influence of the population on leaders, and groups in the middle, such as the media and church leaders, who can exert both upward and downward influence. One avenue for the transformation of each of these groups, so that it becomes an agent of positive change, is public education, through radio and television, depending on what is appropriate for a particular setting, as well as trainings and workshops. Our trainings in Rwanda and its use with leaders is one example (see above, and Staub, 2011; Staub & Pearlman, 2006). However, because of insufficient human and material resources these trainings were not continued as we moved on to educational radio programs. For lasting change, especially by leaders guided by ideology and part of a highly hierarchical system, extended trainings are needed. Another example is the trainings that Howard Wolpe and his associates (Wope et al., 2004) conducted in Burundi. In Burundi also Hutus and Tutsis are the two primary groups, and they have engaged in a great deal of violence against each other. Wolpe and his associates brought leaders of various kinds together, military, different civilian groups, and so on, to develop skills in dialogue and negotiation, as well as comfort with each other before addressing issues to be resolved. Such trainings can develop the capacity of parties to listen to each other, to hear the essential concerns of the other group and express their own effectively, to com- promise, to use mediators as appropriate, to be able to identify escalation and use de- escalation processes, and in general gain knowledge and skills in conflict management and resolution (Coleman, 2012; Kelman & Fisher, 2003; and Chapters…..in this book). One relevant institution to create would be mediation centers that both provide training and offer mediation services. After violent conflict or mass violence--one sided or mutual harmdoing-- as the parties come together, it is difficult for them not to start with expressing all their pain, anger and hostility. In our workshops in Rwanda people interacted around ideas and gained “experiential understanding” that apparently lessened the negative view of the other party and modulated feelings of hurt and anger (Staub et al., 2005; Staub & Pearl- man, 2006). Starting with such a process may help parties to effectively engage with each other. Raising inclusively caring children with moral courage.A crucial aspect of reconciliation, and long term peace, is the way children are so- cialized. How the history of the past is taught, how children in different groups are led to engage with each other, affects attitudes toward the other. Fostering inclusive caring, ex- panding empathy and a feeling of responsibility to all people, is crucial. So is moral courage, the willingness and capacity to express caring and moral values in action, even in the face of possible or actual opposition and negative reactions.There is research and theory about practices for raising caring and helpful children, with more limited research and theory about raising inclusively caring and morally courageous children (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Oliner and Oliner, 1988; Staub, 2003, 2005 b, in press). These practices include love and affection, and positive guidance, with adults verbally promoting, providing models of, and leading children to engage in positive behavior. To make caring inclusive this has to be toward all people, not only toward members of one’s own group. For the development of moral courage, it is important also to al- low and encourage children to express their views, and to act on their beliefs (Staub, 2003, 2005b, 2011, in press). But to engage in such practices, there must be transformation in adults. The processes of reconciliation I described, including ways to promote positive orientation toward others and healing, can contribute to this transformation. But sub- stantially more research is needed on how to develop caring that is inclusive, and moral courage. ConclusionsReconciliation between groups requires a variety of psychological changes. These changes can be maintained and further promoted through the creation of certain kinds of institutions. Just as violence progressively evolves, reconciliation and the building of a peaceful society are also progressive. Following the principles of learning by doing, earlier actions and the changes that result from them can transform people in positive ways. What to do (for example, humanizing the other group), how to do it (for example, through significant contact, or what is said about a devalued group in the media or by leaders) and who are the appropriate and necessary actors for particular reconciliation processes/activities all need to be addressed (Staub, 2011). Actions by leaders, followers, bystanders, by and the media, by intellectuals, and by parents and teachers who promote devaluation and destructive ideologies, are all involved in the development of significant violence between groups; they are all very much needed for promoting reconciliation and building a peaceful society. ReferencesAfrica Rights. (2002). Tribute to courage. Kigali, Rwanda.Aronson, E., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw class- room. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared beliefs in a society: Social psychological analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bilali, R., Vollhardt, J. & deBalzac, H.H. (2011). LaBenevolencija population survey and impact evaluation. Final Report. Unpublished manuscript. Radio LBenevolencija. Amsterdam.Brounéus, K. (2008). Rethinking reconciliation: Concepts, methods, and an empirical study of truth telling and psychological health in Rwanda (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University: Uppsala. ButchantiBurg, S. L. (1997). Preventing ethnic conflict: Macedonia and the pluralist paradigm. Presentation at the Woodrow Wilson Center, February 19. Retrieved June, 2009, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm? fuseaction=topics.print_pub&doc_id=18947&group_id=7427&topic_id=1422&st oplayout=trueByrne, C. (2004). Benefit of burden: Victims’ reflections on TRC participation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10(3), 237–256.Čehaji-Clancy, S., Effron, D. A., Halperin, E., Lieberman, V., & Ross, L. D. (2011).Affirmation, Acknowledgment of In-Group Responsibility, Group-Based Guilt, and Support for Reparative Measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy. 101(2), 256-270.Coleman, P. (2012). Constructive conflict resolution and sustainable peace. In. Coleman, P.T. & Deutsch, M. (eds.). Psychological components of sustainable peace. New York, Springer. Pp. 55-85. Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psycholo- gist, 64(4), 231–240.Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Deutsch, M. (2008). Reconciliation after destructive intergroup conflict. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 395–423). New York: Oxford University Press. Des Forges, A. (1999). Leave none to tell the story: Genocide in Rwanda. New York: Hu- man Rights Watch.Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Volume 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 646-718). New York: Wiley.Fambul Tok, The Movie <[email protected]> and presentation at the Folke Bernadotte Academy course, Reconciliation as Process and PracticeSandö, Sweden, October 18-23, 2012Fein, H. (1993). Accounting for Genocide after 1945: Theories and some findings. Inter- national Journal of Group Rights, 1, 79–106.Gibson, J. L. (2004). Does truth lead to reconciliation? Testing the causal assumptions of the South African truth and reconciliation process. American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 201–217.Gobodo-Madikezela, P. (2003). A human being dies that night: A South African story of forgiveness. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Gunn, R. & Wilson, A.E. (2011). Acknowledging the skeletons in our closet: The effect of group affirmation on collective guilt, collective shame, and reparatory attitudes.Personality and Socical Psychology Bulletin. 37( 11) 1474-1487Ilibagiza, I., & Erwin, S. (2006). Left to tell: Discovering God amidst the Rwanda Holo- caust. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House.Ingelaere, B. (2008). The Gacaca Courts in Rwanda. In L. Huyse & M. Salter (Eds.), Tra- ditional justice and reconciliation mechanisms. After violent conflict: Learning from African experiences. Stockholm, Sweden: International Idea. Kelman, H. C., & Fisher, R. J. (2003). Conflict analysis and resolution. In D. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis. (Eds.), Political psychology. Oxford, England: Oxford Uni- versity Press.Kinzer, S. (2008). A thousand hills: Rwanda’s rebirth and the man who dreamed it. Hobo- ken, N.J. : John Wiley and Sons.Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Long, W. J., & Brecke, P. (2003). War and reconciliation: Reason and emotion in conflict resolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Litz, B.T., Stein, N., Delaney, E., Lebowitz, L., Nash, W.P., Silva, C. & Maguen, S. (2009). Moral injury and moral repair in war veterans: A preliminary model and intervention strategy. Clinical Psychology Review, 29 (8), 695-706Maguen, A., Metzler, A. J., Litz, B. T., Seal, K. H., Knight, S. J., & Marmar, C R. (2009). The impact of killing in war on mental health symptoms and related functioning. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22(5), 435–443. Mamdani, M. (2001). When victims become killers: Colonialism, nativism, and the genocide in Rwanda. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.McCullough, M., Finchman, F. D., & Tasang, J. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 540–557.McNair, R. M. (2002). Perpetration-induced traumatic stress. London: Praeger.Melvern, L. (2004). Conspiracy to murder: The Rwanda genocide. London: Verso.Morris, B. (1989). The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, 1947-1949. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Morris, B. (2004). The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Myers, N. (2008, June). Peace breaks out. Ode, p. 25.Nadler, A., Malloy, T., & Fisher, J. D. (Eds.). (2008). The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation. New York: Oxford University Press.Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2008). Instrumental and socioemotional paths to intergroup reconciliation and the needs-based model of socioemotional reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 37–57). New York: Oxford University Press. Nets-Zehngut, R. (2009). Determinants of War Veterans' Documentary Literature—The Israeli Case regarding the 1948 Palestinian Refugee Problem. Unpublished manuscriptNets-Zehngut, R. (2011). Palestinian autobiographical memory regarding the 1948 Pales- tinian exodus. Political Psychology. 32, 271-295. Nets-Zehngut, R., & Bar-Tal, D. (2011). The Israeli-Jewish popular collective memory of the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict. In N. Gertz (Ed.), Identities in transition in Israeli culture. Ra'anana: The Open University. Newbury, C. (1998). Ethnicity and the politics of history in Rwanda. Africa Today, 41 (1),7–24.Nunca Mas. (1986). The report of the Argentine National Commission on the disap- peared. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.Oliner, S. B., & Oliner, P. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New York: Free Press.Opotaw, S. (Ed.). (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice. Journal of Social Issues, 46 (1), 1–20.Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 574–587.Pearlman, L. A., & Saakvitne, K. W. (1995). Trauma and the therapist: Countertransfer- ence and vicarious traumatization in psychotherapy with incest survivors. New York: W. W. Norton.Pennebaker, J. W. (2000). The effects of traumatic disclosure on physical and mental health: The values of writing and talking about upsetting events. In J. M. Violanti,D. Paton, & C. Dunning (Eds.), Posttraumatic stress intervention (pp. 97-114). Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publisher.Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. Praszkier, R., Nowak, A. & Coleman, P.T. (2010). Social entrepreneurs and constructive change: The wisdom of circumventing conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,16, 153-174. Prunier, G. (2009). Africa's world war: Congo, the Rwandan genocide, and the making of a continental catastrophe. New York: Oxford University Press. Rouhana, N. N. (2010). Key issues in reconciliation: Challenging traditional assumptions on conflict resolution and power dynamics. In D. Bar‐Tal, (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: Social psychological perspectives. New York: Psychol- ogy Press.Salomon, G. (2004). Does peace education make a difference? Peace and Conflict: Jour- nal of Peace Psychology, 10, 257–274.Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hier- archy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Staub, E. (1998). Breaking the cycle of genocidal violence: Healing and reconciliation. InJ. Harvey (Ed.), Perspectives on loss (pp. 231-241). Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.Staub, E. (2003). The psychology of good and evil: Why children, adults and groups help and harm others. New York: Cambridge University PressStaub, E. (2005a). Constructive and harmful forms of forgiveness and reconciliation after genocide and mass killing. In E. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 443-461). Brunner-Routlege Staub, E. (2005b). The roots of goodness: The fulfillment of basic human needs and the development of caring, helping and nonaggression, inclusive caring, moral courage, active bystandership, and altruism born of suffering. In G. Carlo & C. Edwards (Eds.), Moral motivation through the life span: Theory, research, applications (pp. 33-73). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: Nebraska Uni- versity Press.Staub, E. (2006). Reconciliation after genocide, mass killing or intractable conflict: Un- derstanding the roots of violence, psychological recovery and steps toward a general theory. Political Psychology, 27 (6), 865–895.Staub, E. (2007). Preventing violence and terrorism and promoting positive relations between Dutch and Muslim communities in Amsterdam. Peace and Conflict: Jour- nal of Peace Psychology, 13(3), 333–361.Staub, E. (2011). Overcoming evil: Genocide, violent conflict and terrorism. New York: Oxford University PressStaub, E. (2012). Psychology and morality in genocide and violent conflict: Perpetrators, bystanders and rescuers. In Mikulincer, M & Shaver, P.R. The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. Washington DC: American Psychological AssociationStaub, E. (in press). The roots of goodness: inclusive caring, moral courage, altruism born of suffering, active bystandership and heroism. New York: Oxford Universi- ty PressStaub, E., & Bar-Tal, D. (2003). Genocide, mass killing and intractable conflict: Roots, evolution, prevention and reconciliation. In D. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Handbook of political psychology (pp. 710–754). New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press.Staub, E., & Pearlman, L. (2001). Healing, reconciliation and forgiving after genocide and other collective violence. In S. J. Helmick & R. L. Petersen (Eds.), Forgive- ness and reconciliation: Religion, public policy and conflict transformation (pp. 205–229). Radnor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.Staub, E., & Pearlman, L. A. (2006). Advancing healing and reconciliation. In L. Bar- banel & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Psychological interventions in times of crisis (pp. 213–245). New York: Springer-Verlag.Staub, E., & Pearlman, L. A. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict: A com- mentary. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 588–594.Staub, E., Pearlman, L. A., & Bilali, R. (2010). Understanding the roots and impact of violence and psychological recovery as avenues to reconciliation after mass violence and intractable conflict: Applications to national leaders, journalists, community groups, public education through radio, and children. In G. Salomon & E. Cairns (Eds.), Handbook of peace education (pp. 269-287). .New York: Psycholo- gy Press Staub, E., Pearlman, L. A., Gubin, A., & Hagengimana, A. (2005). Healing, reconciliation, forgiving and the prevention of violence after genocide or mass killing: An intervention and its experimental evaluation in Rwanda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(3), 297–334. Staub, E., & Vollhardt, J. (2008). Altruism born of suffering: The roots of caring and helping after experiences of personal and political victimization. American Jour- nal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 267–280.Strang, H., Sherman, L., Angel., C., Woods, D., Bennett, S., Newbury-Birch, D., et al. (2007). Victim evaluations of face to face restorative justice conferences: A quasi- experimental analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 281–307.Thalhammer, K. E., O'Loughlin, P. L., Glazer, M. P., Glazer, P. M., McFarland, S., Shep- ela, S. T., & Stoltzfus, N. (2007). Courageous resistance: The power of ordinary people. New York: Palgrave MacmillanVarshney, A. (2002). Ethnic conflict and civic life: Hindus and Muslims in India. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Volkan, V. D. (2001). Transgenerational transmissions and chosen traumas: An aspect of large group identity. Group Analysis, 34, 79-97.Vollhardt, J, R. (2012). Collective Victimization. In L. Tropp (Ed.). Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.Wallace, H. M., Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2008). Interpersonal consequences of forgiveness: Does forgiveness deter or encourage repeat offenses? Journal of Ex- perimental Social Psychology, 44, 453–460.Wessells, M. (2007). Child soldiers: From violence to protection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wessells, M., & Monteiro, C. (2001). Psychosocial interventions and post-war recon- struction in Angola: Interweaving western and traditional approaches. In D. J. Christie, R. V. Wagner, & D. D. Winter (Eds.), Peace, conflict and violence (pp. 262–277). Upper Saddler River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Wolpe, H. et al., (2004, July). Rebuilding Peace and State Capacity in War-torn Burundi, The Roundtable 93 . 457–67.Worthington, E. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York: Routledge.Worthington, E., & Drinkard, D. T. (2000). Promoting reconciliation through psychoedu- cational and therapeutic interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 93–101.Table 1. Reconciliation and the Prevention of New Violence*Inhibitors (←): Promoters (→):Lack of understanding of the roots of violence Understanding and actions guided by it Lack of understanding of the impact of violence Understanding its impact on survivors, perpetrators, bystandersDevaluing the other Humanizing the other/developing positive attitude toward the other.Through words, deep contact, working on shared goals, education Unhealed psychological wounds of survivors, Healing the wounds by all parties perpetrators, bystanders Lack of Truth Truth (complex: shared)Conflicting collective memories--histories Working both toward a shared history and toward accepting that the other group has a different view of history“Chosen” traumas Addressing the impact of the pastLack of Justice Justice: punitive, restorative, procedural, economicLack of forgiveness Moving toward forgiveness (with mutuality)Lack of acknowledgement of their responsibility Acknowledgment, apology, regret, by perpetrators and their group empathyLack of acceptance of the past Increasing acceptance of the past: “This is what happened, this is part of who we are.”Destructive ideologies Constructive ideologiesUndemocratic systems and practices Developing pluralistic, democratic, values and institutions. Raising children as obedient followers Raising inclusively caring children with moral courage (positive socialization) *Developed from Tables and materials in Staub, E. 2011, Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict and terrorism. New York: Oxford University Press======An alternative to Table 1.Table 1. Reconciliation, the Prevention of Group Violence, and Building Peace: A Summary Table*Reconciliation after violence can prevent new violence and improve the quality of lives. Prevention and reconciliation are overlapping processes, activities. When there has been a history of hostility between groups reconciliation can prevent the evolution of significant violence. Inhibitors (←): Promoters (→):Lack of understanding the roots of violence Understanding and actions guided by it Through education in workshops, trainings, schools, educational media. Contributes to healing, positive attitude toward self and others, empow- erment. Creates more openness to reconciliation ------Leads people to speak out more. In- creases independence of authority. Increases “reconciliation behaviors.” Increases knowledge of what people need to healLack of understanding the impact of violence Understanding its impact on survivors, perpetrators, bystanders Through education, learning about the experience of people who were victimized as well as of perpetrators and by- standersDevaluing the other Humanizing the other/developing positive attitude toward the other.Through words, Actions. Education. How the media write about events. Through deep contact; e.g. Working together for shared goals. Structures promoting contact; e.g. in schools and work settings. Dialogue. It is a prerequisite for a number of other processes (creating equal justice, equal opportunities, just institutions, etc).Unhealed psychological wounds of survivors, Healing the wounds of all parties perpetrators, bystanders Through talking about and sharing experience, listening and empathy. Constructive commemorations“Chosen” traumas Awareness of the impact of the past including how it shapes group identity, guides perceptions and actions. Lack of Truth The complex truth about the history of relations between groups; Who did what to whom.Relevant also before significant violence, when there has been a history of intense hostility. Witnesses, testimonies, truth commissions, historians. Conflicting narratives--views of history Working toward creating a shared history and/or toward accepting that the other has different views of history. Historians, commissions, truth commissions. Research. Leaders and citizens (e.g. Israeli memoirs). Lack of Justice Justice: punitive, restorative, procedural.Distributive justice--a just economic system.Lack of forgiveness Moving toward forgivenessRather than one sided forgiveness, mutuality, which is reconciliation (mutual acceptance). Lack of acknowledgement of their responsibility Acknowledgment, apology, regret, by perpetrators and their group empathyA precondition may be some healing by perpetrators Lack of acceptance of the past Increasing acceptance of the past: “This is what happened, this is part of who we are.”Destructive ideologies Constructive ideologiesWith support from outsiders. Through dialogue across all segments of societyUndemocratic institutions/systems and practices Developing pluralistic, democratic Overly strong respect for authorities values and institutions. Requires prior or accompanying psychological changes (e.g. in attitudes toward other groups)Raising children as obedient followers Raising inclusively caring children with critical consciousness and moral courage Positive socialization Warmth, affection, positive guidance, Learning by doing, Engagement/positive experience with the “other” Allowing and encouraging children to have a voice, to participate in decision making Victimization leading to violence or dysfunction HealingBeyond healing: Altruism born of suffering. Certain experiences and conditions can move people who have suffered to care about and want to protect/help others. Contributing experiences: Having received help at the time of victimization, having helped oneself, healing experiences, support and caring by others after (and before) suffering, beginning to help others. Passive internal and external bystanders Developing active bystandership. The effects of passivity on perpetrators, followers, the bystanders themselves Rescue; Moving to resistance, prevention, reconciliation Working to create harmonious, peaceful societiesContributors: Caring values and empathy, Humanizing the other/inclusive caring, Developing critical consciousness and moral courage, Learning to take the role of the other and taking in others’ pain, Learning about the inhibitors of action, Developing skills in creating alliance with others Joining with others/a community/creating a community of active bystandersCreating institutions--in governments, NGOOs-- that gather information and initiate (early) prevention, Late prevention when necessary. * This Table is a summary, revision and extension of Tables and materials in Staub, E. (2011). Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict and terrorism. New York: Ox- ford University Press

Reconciliation Between Groups: Preventing (New) Violence and Improving Lives

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support