1

Staub, E. (2014). Reconciliation between groups: preventing (new) violence and improv-ing lives. In, Deutsch, M., & Coleman, P. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Third Edition. Jossey-Bass Publishers

Abstract

As a background to understanding reconciliation and prevention, this chapter briefly re-

views 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 so-

cial processes that attempt to fulfill these needs. Reconciliation and the prevention of vio-

lence 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 educa-

tional 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 victimiza-

tion, 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 acknowledg-

ing 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 insti-

tutions, is important. So is raising inclusively caring, morally courageous children.

Mass violence, reconciliation, psychological needs, pluralistic societies, collective memo-

ries and shared histories, constructive ideologies, inclusive caring, socialization,

2

Reconciliation between groups: preventing (new) violence and improving lives

Ervin Staub

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

In this chapter I will write about reconciliation both after, and before significant vio-

lence 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 posi-

tive coexistence“ (Staub, 2011). Most definitions, like ours, focus on relationships,

whether between individuals or groups, for example, “restoration of trust in an interper-

sonal 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,

3

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 for-

giveness or positive attitude toward the other.

Arie Nadler and Nurit Schnabel (2008), Israeli psychologists, differentiated be-

tween 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 ad-

dressing 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

4

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 vio-

lence. 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 coexis-

tence 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, emotion-

ally, 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 lead-

ing 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 reconcilia-

tion 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 condi-

tions include economic deterioration, political chaos, very great social change, and espe-

cially 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).

5

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 de-

valued 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 ide-

ology’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 ide-

ology, 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 hap-

pens 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).

6

“Instigating conditions” and the violence that evolves out of them have destruc-

tive 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 connec-

tions 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 accompa-

nying 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 pro-

grams, and accompanying “grass roots activities” such as the training of conflict resolu-

tion 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

7

have created the basis on which further reconciliation practices can build (See Staub,

2011 for an overview).

Insert Table 1 about here

The 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 pre-

vention, 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).

8

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 (inte-

grated 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 tra-

ditional and control groups from before the training to two month afterwards. These

9

changes included increased understanding of the complex origins of genocide, more posi-

tive attitudes by Hutus and Tutsis toward each other, “conditional forgiveness” –express-

ing the willingness to forgive if perpetrators acknowledge what they did and/or ask for-

giveness—and reduction in trauma symptoms (Staub et al., 2005).

Knowledge of the influences that lead to group violence seemed to become “expe-

riential 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 forgive-

ness 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 emotion-

ally and as active bystanders, thereby preventing violence (Staub, 2011).

10

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 rec-

onciliation), 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 train-

ing, 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 wounded-

ness, 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

11

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 Bu-

rundi beginning in 2005, and to the Congo in 2006. While it is important to develop gen-

eral 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 condi-

tions 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 find-

12

ings 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 vio-

lence 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 cer-

tain emotions and actions of their own and others’ as the result of psychological wound-

edness 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 impor-

tant 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

13

relatively new concept of moral injury was proposed because of the widespread psycho-

logical 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 em-

pathy 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 perpe-

trators and passive members of the perpetrator group can diminish their (usually unac-

knowledged) 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

14

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 talk-

ing 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 pos-

sibility 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-

15

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 re-

sponses 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 harm-

doers, ranging from child soldiers who were abducted or enticed into rebel groups and of-

ten 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

16

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 be-

come 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 be-

half 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 effec-

tive if the words refer to real and significant positive actions of the other, for example,

17

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 influ-

ence. 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

18

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 pro-

cesses. 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 ef-

fects. Understanding the influences that have led to violence, healing, and other influ-

ences 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 vio-

lence 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.”

19

The history of events is sometimes established through documents, and testi-

monies 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, in-

cluding 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’ narra-

tives in a conflict removed from their own, the Northern Irish conflict, increased their

20

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 ne-

gotiation 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 to-

ward 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 his-

tory, a related task is to accept that they have different views of events—when neither

21

view is clearly historically incorrect or morally unacceptable. It would indicate a signifi-

cant 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 processes

There 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 perpetra-

tors 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 ex-

press 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 com-

munity 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 pro-

22

cesses 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 compen-

sation 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 atti-

tudes 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 ac-

cess for all groups to society’s resources. Equal access may also require practices that ad-

dress the consequences of a past history, whether differentness or discrimination, such as

23

helping immigrant groups like Muslims in European countries to acculturate (Staub,

2007, 2011),

Moving toward forgiveness

Forgiveness 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 ac-

ceptance. But forgiveness is one sided: it comes from the party that is harmed, victim-

ized, injured. Forgiveness by victims after intense victimization is extremely difficult.

However, it is much more likely if harmdoers, or the group they come from, acknowl-

edge their actions, the harm they have caused, express regret, apologize and show empa-

thy 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 reconcilia-

tion.

Private forgiveness, with its element of letting go of pain, can bring relief to peo-

ple who suffered. But one sided public forgiveness can be dangerous. Violence creates

an imbalance in the relationship between harmdoers and victims. While publicly forgiv-

ing people who have not acknowledged and showed regret for their actions can some-

times 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 rela-

tionship, and embolden perpetrators, leading to more violence (Staub, 2005a, 2011). The

conditions under which unconditional or one sided forgiveness by those who were

24

harmed moves groups toward peaceful relations, rather than new violence, requires fur-

ther 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).

25

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 af-

firmed 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 com-

munity organization that has designed ways of engaging people with each other.

“Under a tree, or in other settings, organizers, ex-combatants, and victims/com-

munity 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 fol-

lowed 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 peo-

ple 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

26

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 commu-

nities 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 recon-

ciliation. 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

27

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, commu-

nity, 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 cre-

ation of the better future. These ideologies are powerful motivators of violence against

the identified 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 ideolo-

gies 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 liv-

ing in peace, this benefiting the region and making terrorism less likely (Staub, 2011).

28

Political conditions, and reconciliation: Pluralistic, fair and democratic institutions.

What are the institutionalized practices and institutions that promote reconcilia-

tion, 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 rec-

onciliation 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 pro-

cesses. 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 oppo-

sition in other ways as well. This may be in part because Tutsis, about 15%of the popula-

tion, 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

29

representation of the different groups in the population conflicts can be peacefully re-

solved. 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 re-

gardless 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 Rwan-

dan 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 eco-

nomic development of Rwanda (Kinzer, 2008) has increased differences in wealth be-

tween segments of the population, as it usually happens in cases of speedy economic de-

velopment in poor countries. But equal access to opportunity, especially if it becomes in-

creasingly 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 in-

stitutions that serve it evolve progressively, so do the processes and institutions that serve

reconciliation and peace.

30

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 recon-

ciliation 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 elec-

tions, 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 pro-

cesses 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 institu-

tions, 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 televi-

31

sion, 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 ma-

terial 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 train-

ings 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-es-

calation 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

32

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 chil-

dren, 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 be-

havior. To make caring inclusive this has to be toward all people, not only toward mem-

bers 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 transforma-

tion in adults. The processes of reconciliation I described, including ways to promote

positive orientation toward others and healing, can contribute to this transformation. But

substantially more research is needed on how to develop caring that is inclusive, and

moral courage.

33

Conclusions

Reconciliation 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, ear-

lier 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, follow-

ers, bystanders, by and the media, by intellectuals, and by parents and teachers who pro-

mote devaluation and destructive ideologies, are all involved in the development of sig-

nificant violence between groups; they are all very much needed for promoting reconcili-

ation and building a peaceful society.

References

Africa 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.

34

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.

Butchanti

Burg, 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=true

Byrne, C. (2004). Benefit of burden: Victims’ reflections on TRC participation. Peace

and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10(3), 237–256.

Čehajić-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.

35

Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive percep-

tions? 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:

Human 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 personal-

ity development (5th ed., pp. 646-718). New York: Wiley.

Fambul Tok, The Movie <info@fambultok.com> and presentation at the Folke

Bernadotte Academy course, Reconciliation as Process and Practice

Sandö, Sweden, October 18-23, 2012

Fein, 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.

36

Gunn, R. & Wilson, A.E. (2011). Acknowledging the skeletons in our closet: The effect

of group affirmation on collective guilt, collective shame, and reparatory atti-

tudes. Personality and Socical Psychology Bulletin. 37( 11) 1474-1487

Ilibagiza, 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.),

Traditional justice and reconciliation mechanisms. After violent conflict: Learn-

ing 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.

Hoboken, 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 con-

flict 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), 695-706

Maguen, 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.

37

Mamdani, M. (2001). When victims become killers: Colonialism, nativism, and the geno-

cide 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 inter-

group 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 rec-

onciliation (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 manuscript

Nets-Zehngut, R. (2011). Palestinian autobiographical memory regarding the 1948 Pales-

tinian exodus. Political Psychology. 32, 271-295.

38

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.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.

39

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 con-

flicts 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. In

J. 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 Press

Staub, 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

40

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, appli-

cations (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 gen-

eral theory. Political Psychology, 27 (6), 865–895.

Staub, E. (2007). Preventing violence and terrorism and promoting positive relations be-

tween 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 Press

Staub, 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 Association

Staub, E. (in press). The roots of goodness: inclusive caring, moral courage, altruism

born of suffering, active bystandership and heroism. New York: Oxford Univer-

sity Press

Staub, E., & Bar-Tal, D. (2003). Genocide, mass killing and intractable conflict: Roots,

evolution, prevention and reconciliation. In D. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis

41

(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 vi-

olence and psychological recovery as avenues to reconciliation after mass vio-

lence and intractable conflict: Applications to national leaders, journalists, com-

munity groups, public education through radio, and children. In G. Salomon & E.

Cairns (Eds.), Handbook of peace education (pp. 269-287). .New York: Psychol-

ogy Press

Staub, E., Pearlman, L. A., Gubin, A., & Hagengimana, A. (2005). Healing, reconcilia-

tion, 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.

42

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 Macmillan

Varshney, 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.

43

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, bystanders

Devaluing the other Humanizing the other/developing positive attitude toward the other.

Through words, deep contact, working on shared goals, education

44

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 historyand toward accepting that the other group has a different view of history

“Chosen” traumas Addressing the impact of the past

Lack of Justice Justice: punitive, restorative, procedural, economic

Lack of forgiveness Moving toward forgiveness(with mutuality)

Lack of acknowledgement of their responsibility Acknowledgment, apology, regret, by perpetrators and their group empathy

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 ideologies

Undemocratic systems and practices Developing pluralistic, democratic, values and institutions.

Raising children as obedient followers Raising inclusively caring children with moral courage (positive socialization)

45

*Developed from Tables and materials in Staub, E. 2011, Overcoming evil: geno-cide, 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 signifi-cant 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 atti-tude toward self and others, empow-erment. Creates more openness to reconcilia-tion

------------------------------------------------Leads people to speak out more. In-creases independence of authority. Increases “reconciliation behaviors.” Increases knowledge of what people need to heal

Lack of understanding the impact of violence Understanding its impact on survivors, perpetrators, bystanders

46

Through education, learning about the experience of people who were victimizedas well as of perpetrators and by-standers

Devaluing 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 jus-tice, equal opportunities, just institu-tions, 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 pastincluding how it shapes group iden-tity, 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 vio-lence, when there has been a history of intense hostility.

47

Witnesses, testimonies, truth com-missions,historians.

Conflicting narratives--views of history Working toward creating a shared history and/or toward accepting that the other has different views of his-tory.

Historians, commissions, truth com-missions.Research.Leaders and citizens (e.g. Israeli memoirs).

Lack of Justice Justice: punitive, restorative, procedural.

Distributive justice--a just economicsystem.

Lack of forgiveness Moving toward forgiveness

Rather than one sided forgiveness, mutuality, which is reconciliation (mutual acceptance).

Lack of acknowledgement of their responsibility Acknowledgment, apology, regret, by perpetrators and their group empathy

A precondition may be some healing by perpetrators

48

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 ideologies

With support from outsiders. Through dialogue across all seg-ments of society

Undemocratic institutions/systems and practices Developing pluralistic, democraticOverly strong respect for authorities values and institutions.

Requires prior or accompanying psy-chological 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 Healing

Beyond healing: Altruism born of suf-fering.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,

49

healing experiences, support and car-ing by others after (and before) suffer-ing, 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, preven-tion, reconciliation Working to create harmonious, peace-ful societies

Contributors: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/creat-ing acommunity of active bystanders

Creating 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

50