Reconciliation and quality peace

Alexander Dukalskis, Laura K. Taylor, John Darby

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationUnderstanding Quality Peace
Subtitle of host publicationPeacebuilding after Civil War
PublisherTaylor and Francis
Pages148-160
Number of pages13
ISBN (Electronic)9781351391573
ISBN (Print)9781138307674
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01 Jan 2018

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reconciliation and quality peace'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Dukalskis, A., Taylor, L. K., & Darby, J. (2018). Reconciliation and quality peace. In Understanding Quality Peace: Peacebuilding after Civil War (pp. 148-160). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315142470