1. Perhaps the primary socio-psychological prerequisite that concerns reconciliation has to do with identity change, what Kelmen (2008) refers to in a collective sense “Changing one’s collective identity by removing the negation of the other from it implies a degree of acceptance of the other’s identify” (p. 24). It may be that Lederach (2010) attempts to expand on Kelmen by prefacing the need for those who work in conflict resolution and peacebuilding by first looking inside one’s self, to develop senses that are more attuned to surroundings and may assist in understanding and appreciating the various contexts, nuances and minutia so prevalent in instances where conflict is exceedingly volatile (The moral imagination). As such, going the inward route may ultimately prove to be far more productive as involved individuals begin processes that broaden views formerly constructed through self-interests, and in turn allowing for each party a conduit by which empathy becomes tangible opening a wide-range of possibilities towards reconciliation.
Reconciliation actually moves beyond conflict resolution, and from a social-psychological perspective allows those involved to internalize and integrate newly formed relationships (Kelmen, 2008). This is incorporated by Lederach (2010) when discussing web watching, “The key to sparking that change and making that change stick requires imagination, new ways of thinking, and developing processes that weave relationships and connection that create the social spaces that form the invisible fabric of human community within and beyond the geography of violence” (The moral imagination, 2010). However, the notion of peacebuilding changed going into the 21st century at the close of the Cold War, where five distinct characteristics formed. The first had to do with recognizing the importance of peacebuilding, especially on the international level where issues such as human rights, social justice and humanitarian protections are so important. Second, newer policies were initiated for purposes of assisting defusing potential situations as well as operationalizing methods by which to diffuse violent conflicts and integrate peacebuilding initiatives that also assist in reconstruction (Tschirgi, 2003). Next, operational responses to conflicts were launched that included humanitarian relief, peacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts. Fourth, a number of reforms took place on the institutional level, such as at the United Nations, which established offices and agencies (governmental and NGO) that attempted to prevent conflicts in favor of peacemaking efforts (Tschirgi, 2003). Lastly, international institutional reforms and arrangements have occurred that allow both governments and NGOS to be better prepared to respond to conflicts and begin peacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts more rapidly. It should be noted that in all such efforts a much more broad approach is taken by those involved in peacemaking processes which involve a more objective and empathetic approach while attempting to understand each position taken during a conflict (Tschirgi, 2003).
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Reconciliation and Peacebuilding".
2. In responding to the second question this paper returns to the first by stating that Lederach (2010) argues in favor of looking inward when attempting to use a web approach “But the approach of web watching also suggests that the process of locating webs demands careful attention to how we are in and how we relate to the setting” (The moral imagination, 2010).
It appears that Lederach is imploring readers to “walk softly” amidst the conflict as well as with those involved; to be aware of where peacebuilders are going and where it is that they are involved in. He provides a notion that space—geography—is shared, which is something that noted Buddhist monk Thich Nhất Hanh is at least partially stressing within his book Peace is every step as he instructs readers to go about the process of transforming thinking, “To transform our situation is also to transform our minds. To transform our minds is also to transform our situation, because the situation is mind, and the mind is situation” (Nhất Hanh & Kotler, 1995). In essence what both are suggesting is that a more advantageous approach to peacebuilding involves understanding one’s self and the individual thought processes that may lead to bias or barriers that negate opportunities to see all sides of a conflict.
Lederach (2010) also states that “the relationships that comprise a setting, represent the single most important feature that should be taken into account if change in the patterns and relationships is to occur” (The moral imagination, 2010). Again this harkens back to the response to the initial question because the author appears to be placing the onus of change on the peacebuilder; that the sense play a great part in such processes, as do the act of being still and having a great degree of understanding about the relationship between peacemaker and their environments as well as those within them (The moral imagination, 2010). The approach taken by Lederach almost seem to fly in the face of the mechanistic views of Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse (2011) who seem bent on deconstructing the notion of reconciliation in ways that make it seem almost regimented, sterile and altogether not very human. Their breakdown of reconciliation found in Chapter 10 of the text Contemporary conflict resolution: The prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts seems more fit for clinical trials, broadly defining it as “a complex process made up of several components that all play their part” (Ramsbotham, et al., 2011, p. 247). In fact, their concept of reconciliation is more in tuned with systematic processes that, broadly defined, places little onus on individuals. But that is the meat of what Lederach is articulating, and this appears to subsume the notion of reconciliation, and peacebuilding, as something of a system’s approach. In order to approach a situation in conflict one must first understand themselves in relation to it and be prepared to be interactive, “You must imagine the whole even when it is not visibly present, and you must follow the strands that you touch” (The moral imagination, 2010).
- Kelmen, H. C. (2008). Reconciliation from a social-psychological perspective. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 15-32). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Lederach, J. P. (2010). The moral imagination: The art and soul of building peace. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google EBooks.
- Nhất Hanh, T. & Kotler, A. (1995). Peace is every step. London, UK: Rider. Google EBooks.
- Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H., & Woodhouse, T. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution: The
prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity. - Tschirgi, N. (2003). Peacebuilding as the link between security and development: Is the window of opportunity closing? Retrieved from International Peace Academy Studies in Security and Development website: http://www.un.org/esa/peacebuilding/Library/Peacebuilding_as_link_IPA.pdf
