It is unfortunate that the term reconciliation has become embedded in discussion about social reconstruction. It is the wrong word. It implies a prior state of con - ciliation, just waiting to be reinstated were it not for the inconvenient intervention of violence. It panders to a nostalgia myth, common in violently divided societies, that the conflicting groups had enjoyed at worst an uneasy peace and at best some golden age of harmony and fairness before the violence, a condition that only exists in the imaginations of the mythmakers (Darby 1986). The danger in this view is that it suggests that the violence itself, rather than the underlying disputes that led to it, is the main problem. Whatever new relationships might emerge from a peace agreement, there is one certainty: they will be different from how relationships operated in the past.
|Title of host publication||Understanding Quality Peace|
|Subtitle of host publication||Peacebuilding after Civil War|
|Publisher||Taylor and Francis|
|Number of pages||13|
|Publication status||Published - 01 Jan 2018|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Sciences(all)