Deconstructing “reconciliation”: ideas on how to criticallyapproach peacebuilding

By Louis Francis Monroy SantanderPhD CandidateInternational Development Department University of Birmingham

ABSTRACT

Different formulas of truth, justice and reconciliation inpost-conflict settings have been promoted by variouspeacebuilding agents with the aim of dealing with pastatrocities and support the social reconstruction of dividedsocieties. The different approaches to reconciliation(international, national, local and grassroots) affect the waypeacebuilding is understood and assimilated by individualsresiding in post-conflict settings. The aim of this paper isto critically look at the different meanings given toreconciliation in academic and policy literature in order tofurther explore the differences between problem-solving andcritical approaches to peacebuilding. Starting from anunderstanding of the introduction of critical approaches topeace research and debates around liberal peacebuilding, thepaper will discuss possible points of convergence anddivergence in the understanding of reconciliation asreconstruction practice and present a framework for looking atthe divide between top-down and bottom-up approaches topeacebuilding.

Introduction (1000 words)

As writers in the field of international relations identify

the need of adopting critical approaches that challenge the

state-centrist feature of the discipline, the subfield of

peace research has pushed for such a move, calling for work

that is both theoretically and practically focused on

identifying the contradictions that international formulas for

peace have brought to populations subject to peace

intervention. A new perspective on the local, on the everyday

and on understandings of peace alternative to liberal state-

focused formulas seem to reflect the critical turn in

peacebuilding literature. One particular theme that has

potential for the critical study of peacebuilding is the area

of reconciliation, truth and justice in post-conflict

societies.

Reconciliation, a term that has caught the attention of

academics and practitioners working in post-conflict

peacebuilding, has been subject to an in-depth debate around

its definition and impact on international practices of state

and peace-building. For some, reconciliation is explained

as a process of relationship-building at the national and

community levels (Jeong: 2000, Nordquist: 2006, Assefa: 2001),

for others is the outcome of a political process that deals

with injustices and past atrocities through restorative

justice (Fischer: 2011, Van Zyl: 2005) and there are some who

establish connections between truth-telling processes and

reconciliation as effective forms of peacebuilding (Kostiḉ:

2012, Lerche: 2002, Eastmond: 2010).

The definitions debate is marked by questions and concerns

regarding the impact of peace and state building on

reconciliation between divided communities: Nordquist (2006)

asks why and how has reconciliation become a concept in

political discourse, Reychler and Paffenholz (2001) question

the policy choices within a democratic transition process that

deal with truth, justice and reconciliation as well as Hamber

and Kelly (2004) who connect reconciliation, local empowerment

and effective governance as ingredients towards legitimate

peacebuilding practice.

As academic work seeks to place reconciliation into post-

conflict politics and observe its relation to issues of

justice, truth, amnesty, acknowledgement and forgiveness it

connects with critical debates around liberal peace and its

effect on sites of international peace interventions. These

debates, concerned with the impact of international

peacebuilding on local populations subject to intervention and

the legitimacy of actors, processes and policies surrounding

peace in war-torn societies have advocated for the need of a

critical perspective in international relations and peace

research that enables an emancipatory agenda within the

discipline. For instance, Juttila et al (2008) demand peace

research to become a critical social theory, engaged with the

contemporary social world, offering spaces for social action.

It should re-examine the constitutive categories and

conceptual frameworks for theorizing peace. Another voice

within the critical field is Oliver Richmond who pushes for an

emancipatory peace research that relies on critical approaches

to international relations, one that attempts to “open up a

research agenda on the various forms of peace, to negate its constant use as an

ideal form, to give room for the voices of dissent about its dominant models to be

heard, and to investigate the potential for alternative or coexisting forms”

(Richmond, 2007, p.264).

This demand for listening and observing different views about

what makes peace sustainable and meaningful leads to an

interest in exploring different ways of constructing the

meaning of reconciliation, as a way of exploring possibilities

for alternative and feasible spaces in policy and practice.

This reflects the interpretation made by Wagner and Winter

(2001) of Kriesberg’s (98) work on reconciliation, stating

that exploring the meaning of reconciliation is far from being

simply a semantic exercise but a key task when developing

theory, policy and practice that promotes peaceful societies.

This paper aims at critically observing the “meanings” debate

on reconciliation as a way to explore the differences between

problem solving and critical approaches to peacebuilding. In

order to develop such critical view, this article will begin

by looking at how critical social theory was introduced into

peace research and how this process shaped debates on liberal

peacebuilding, debates characterised by a complex division

between problem-solving and critical approaches. This first

section will focus on the methodological components of

critical social theory, their adaptation to the themes of

international relations and their use in debates about the

liberal peace model for international interventions. The

second section places specific attention on the way

reconciliation has been conceived and debated within peace

research and how it is also subject to a division between

“thick and “thin” approaches that sustain problematic

divisions between the “international” and “the local”. A

third chapter will propose a critical framework for

understanding reconciliation based on the use of

deconstruction as a way of observing the use of the term and

the possibilities of a state-building and reconciliation

nexus.

TOWARDS A CRITICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING PEACEBUILDING

Before engaging in an in-depth study of the meaning given to

reconciliation as a peacebuilding activity, it is necessary to

set the stage and explain the context in which such debate has

been placed and the methodological implications that are

underpinned in the adoption of critical perspectives within

international relations and peacebuilding. For this purpose,

the section will present methodological reflections about

doing critical social theory, the way this has influenced

debates on alternative approaches to international relations

and how the liberal peace debate has been presented.

CRITICAL THEORY: ASSUMPTIONS, AIMS AND METHODOLOGICAL

UNDERPINNINGS

The idea of a critical theory is generally linked to the work

of the Frankfurt School and the role that Max Horkheimer

played in the development of a theory that critiqued the

incidence of positivism in social science. According to

Buchanan (2010) critical theory is defined against the idea

that science is a set of abstract propositions which can be

verified empirically, it is a historical, subjective theory

that is part of society, a highly reflexive enterprise.

Critical theory begins with a critique of the excessive

concern of positivism with objectivity which assumes as given

the social world that it seeks to explore and analyse. For

Calhoun (95) this critique leads to an understanding that

theory is essential to the constitution of facts, it is not

only a guide to action but an aid in reflecting about

circumstances and possibilities in which the social world is

being thought of. Critical theory “challenge(s) the “giveness” of the

social world…to enable researchers to see new problems and new facts in that

world…recognizing that knowledge is a historical product and…potentially a

medium of historically significant action” (Calhoun, 1995, pp. 17)

Since critical theorists are concerned with the positivist

assumption that the social world is a measurable, observable

existing framework subject to scientific observation and

methodological scrutiny, then critical theory unfolds that

framework via a process of immanent critique to identify

contradictions between human civilization and its cultural

products. This is reflected by Calhoun (95) who insists

that by critically grasping the sources of events and social

dynamics one also grasps an underlying level of contradictions

and differences. Critical theory’s function is to raise

awareness of the contradictory conditions of action distorted

by everyday understandings (Comstock, 82). The purpose of any

critical theory then is to dig underneath the surface of

historically oppressive social structures (Harvey, 1990) which

begins with the assumption that knowledge is structured by

sets of social relations that help construct meaning around

social objects.

The founding principle of critical theory is that men and

women are active agents in the creation of their social world

and personal lives; its aim is to provide knowledge that deals

with prevailing (oppressive) social structures. This gives

critical theory its emancipatory aim as it seeks to liberate

humans from forms of domination, connecting theory and

practice with the view of envisaging social and political

transformation (Leysens, 2008). The main assumption is that

social order is marked by forms of domination and

subordination from the basic human need to control nature and

to control other humans.

Due to its emancipatory aim and its need for identifying

contradictions and obstacles to human freedom, critical social

theory investigates the social world in movement, placing it

in a historical context and developing a methodology that

looks at the role of ideology in the creation of knowledge and

understanding of the social world as a form of domination.

Held (80) sees this methodology as one that describes an

object’s conceptual principles, unfolding its implications and

consequences to later re-examine them in search of

contradictions and forms of subordination. As an outcome of

this process a critical evaluation of the object leads to new

ways of understanding it, creating feasible spaces for

emancipation.

The methodological assumptions that underpin critical theory

have to do with recognizing the historical nature of concepts,

their integrative dimension and their potential for immanent

critique and reflection. In a collection of critical works,

Bronner and Kellner (1989) introduce Max Horkheimer’s “Notes on

Institute Activities” which form the original methodological

reflections for a critical method. For Horkheimer, as

concepts are historically formed, theorists must account for

the socio-historical context that determines the construction

of a concept. This implies a critical engagement with the

theorist’s contemporary social world as well as a critical

account of the historical and cultural conditions on which the

theorist’s work depends on (Calhoun, 95).

Another element in Horkheimer’s notes is identifying concepts

as integrative, making the formation of social concepts an

empirical process that requires combining experiences and

results from various sciences in an interdisciplinary approach

that ignores fixed scientific boundaries. This means that in

the process of representing concepts and meaning, critical

methods must ensure an interdisciplinary approach that

reinterprets the meaning behind an object, giving it a new

character and meaning in a larger frame of concepts and

theories (Held, 1980).

The last and most vital element in Horkheimer’s notes is that

of immanent critique. He recognizes the critical nature of

societal concepts and the need to relate social institutions

and activities to the values put in place through standards

and ideals. Immanent critique is a procedure that “confronts

the existent…with the claim of its conceptual principles, in order to criticised the

relation between the two and thus transcend them” (Held, 1980, p. 182).

It is through immanent critique that critical research

observes problems of particular social agents and seeks to

unveil social constraints and possible courses of action

towards emancipation (Comstock, 1982).

As critical theory is guided both by an emancipatory aim of

liberating human beings from contradictions and oppressive

structures emerging from cultural products as well as a set of

methodological assumptions focused on a historically-located,

critical and integrated science, it has become attractive for

IR theorists seeking an alternative to Realism and Neorealism.

This interest in an alternative view of the discipline has

marked the work of authors such as Robert Cox, Andrew

Linklater, and Oliver Richmond.

CRITICAL THEORY INTO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND PEACE

RESEARCH: FROM A CRITIQUE OF REALISM TO A CRITIQUE OF THE

LIBERAL PEACE

The introduction of critical frameworks into the international

relations has to do with an interest with voices of dissent

that resist fixed approaches to the study of the international

system and advocate for alternatives to the paradoxes created

by realism’s state-centric approach. The interest of

international relations theorists in critical approaches to

social science stems from a parallel between realism and

neorealism’s focus on the state as focus of analysis and the

concept of immutability of the international order with

critical theory’s views on positivist approaches to social

science. For instance, Payne and Sambati (2004) call for a

critical account in the study of the construction, maintenance

and decay of regimes for two reasons: a) accounts of

international politics anchored in statist forms do not

capture the diverse social forces and challenges confronting

humanity and b) a wide array of non-governmental actors key in

the contemporary global conditions are often excluded from

state-centric formulations. George and Campbell (1990) state

that the various approaches in international relations share

four interdisciplinary elements of critical analysis: a)

denounce the inadequacy of positivist/empiricist approaches to

knowledge, b) a concern with how knowledge production in the

field repudiates external sources of understanding, c) social

reality is a linguistically constructed and d) emphasizes on

inter-subjectivity as a source for the construction of meaning

and identity.

As critical IR theory has adopted instruments from critical

theory, post-structuralism and postmodernism, it has enlarged

the parameters of the field, allowing new avenues of analysis

and new methods in approaching “the international”. Linklater

(2007) comments on how critical theory has denounced

positivism within the field, demanding for reflexivity around

neutrality claims and the way they legitimize ideology.

Apart from this, Linklater also sees in Critical approaches a

contestation of empirical claims that assume that the

structures of the social world are immutable, insisting that

such claims lead to supporting inequality and avoid prospects

for new forms of political community. Critical IR recognizes

that exclusion is generated not only by class but also through

processes of human learning, and makes its central aim to

envision alternate ways of political community that destroy

ideological forms of exclusion.

A particular contribution to the critical debates in the field

of international relations is that of Robert Cox and his work

“Social forces, states and world orders: beyond IR theory”. Many authors see

his work as seminal in the introduction of critical theory and

postmodernism into international relations. Leysens (2008)

explains that Cox addresses the question of how social forces

are linked to state forms and world orders by demanding a move

beyond the study of state and society as spate entities,

focusing on society and state-society complexes’ relation to

various forms of states. What Cox sustains is that

traditional IR maintains a difference between state and

society as plain analytical concepts that have no different

spheres of activity and the need to explore different

configurations of state-society complex that can help

understand the plural forms of states in the international

system. The importance of Cox’s work is related to a critique

of the dominance of problem-solving approaches in North

American IR scholarship which relates to Horkheimer’s critique

of positivism during the Frankfurt School era. For George and

Campbell (1990) Cox emphasized the significance of “the

other”, the marginalized and the need for its study as realism

had been more concerned with the defence of American Power,

the maintenance of order and the organization of international

institutions. Cox viewed realism not as a cohesive

theoretical tradition but as the epicentre of unresolved

tensions in modern Western theory, mainly a tendency towards

reductionism derived from positivist influences. Brown (1994)

understands Cox’s critical approach as a theory that stands

apart from and challenges the existing order.

As Cox understands the need for bringing a non-state centric

approach to the study of international relations he brings the

idea of critical theory by distinguishing it from what he

calls problem-solving theories, which differ in terms of

perspectives and purposes. Problem solving theory “takes the

world as it finds it, with the prevailing social and power relations and the institutions

into which they are organised as the given framework for action” (Cox, 1981,

p.XX). The objective of such theory is to make power

relations and institutions to work effectively in dealing with

complexity and trouble in the international system. On the

other hand, he presents critical theory, one that “stands apart

from the prevailing order and ask show that order came about…(it) does not take

institutions and social and power relationships for granted but calls them into

question” (Cox, 1981, p.XX). The aim of this type of theory is

to make an appraisal of the framework within which problem-

solving theory operates and is orientated towards the social

and political complex as a whole. Cox’s approach seems to

resuscitate Horkheimer’s view that concepts are historical as

he views critical theory as a theory of history concerned with

a continuing historical change. This methodologically implies

that the theory adapts its contents to the changing object it

aims to explain, a different endeavour than that of problem-

solving theory which becomes value-free by simply accepting

the prevailing order as its framework for analysis.

This distinction between critical and problem-solving

approaches has become relevant in debates within IR around the

role of theory, the need for emancipatory approaches to the

study of the international system and the spaces for

reflexivity in theory and practice within the field. Leysen

(2008) elaborates on Cox to label problem-solving theory as

status-quo orientated, ahistorical and normatively biased as

it views contemporary parameters of the system as a vision of

both past and future. Both critical and problem-solving

approaches are connected to practice, critical theory is

understood as strategic action aimed at changing the status

quo and problem-solving theory as a tactical action guide to

its maintenance. The key component in critical IR is its

reflective stance, the need to look at the way the theorist

and researcher influences the process for creating knowledge.

Jackson (2011) highlights reflexivity as the element that

differentiates Cox’s style of theory from problem-solving, the

need to clarify the tacit assumptions inherent on the views of

society expressed in theory. George and Campbell (1990) also

point to reflexivity as an emancipatory component in their

understanding of Cox’s critical theory. For them, Cox reminds

IR scholars that by not reflecting upon the process in which

they understand reality, realists ignore the nature of change

generated by theory and practice. Reflexivity is needed to

“reconnect theoretical knowledge to human socio-political

interest, it opens the otherwise foreclosed debate on the

construction of reality”. (George and Campbell, 1990, pp. 283)

The study of peace operations, contemporary conflict

resolution as well as debates on the intersections between

peace and state-building are also permeated by the critical

versus problem-solving distinction, which tend to foster a

sort of division that complicates the connection between

theory and practice. Newman (2009) sees a problem-solving

nature of peace operations scholarship, preoccupied with

coordination, effectiveness and sequencing. He also

recognizes the emergence of a critical peacebuilding approach

which questions policy assumptions concerning market,

governance, democracy, capacity-building and modernization.

In the eyes of Newman this has benefitted IR scholarship by

exploring interests and ideologies behind peacebuilding and

interrogating the meaning of peace. The distinction between

the two scholarships has created two fronts in the critical

debates of peacebuilding and their view of practices that

promote market capitalism and liberal democracies in post-

conflict peace operations, commonly known as the liberal

peace. An example of the division into peacebuilding camps

can be seen in Meera Sabaratnam’s (2011) work on the liberal

peace. She comments and compares the works of Roland Paris

and Mark Duffield as representative of the two fronts: Paris’s

problem-solving views excessively focus on the need for

institutionalization before political and economic

liberalisation and Duffield’s critical approach which rejects

emancipation or transformation of peace as international

practice forces a regulatory framework to control and

stabilise the Global South. Tadjbakhsk (2009) also explains

the two fronts, problem-solving focuses on the inefficiency of

the liberal peace and solves it through rethinking,

sequencing, prioritization, better coordination and involving

local participation to avoid fragmentation. The critical

approach doubts the essence of liberal peace and sees in its

values a hegemonic structure to be imposed on all societies.

The debate between the problem-solving and critical fronts is

beneficial to understanding the role of knowledge in the way

IR approaches peace interventions yet its divisive nature

complicates the relation between knowledge and practice by

insisting on categories such as the top-down and the bottom-up

to explain various forms of intervention. Peacebuilding

scholarship has moved from an under-theorized and uncritical

endeavour to one that exposes the pathologies of contemporary

peace operations and connects them to debates about world

order and legitimacy (Newman, 2009). Critical authors like

Richmond (2010) bring to the light the problem of state-

building formulas as responses to peacebuilding demands,

highlighting the clashes between Western models of governance

and local indigenous traditions of governance and politics

leading to hybrid political orders. Chandler (2009) moves the

critique forward and talks about two sources of critique: a

power-based critique where the liberal peace is seen as

hegemonic values unfolded through political economy and

Western geostrategic needs and an idea-based critique which

questions the universalizing assumptions of the liberal policy

discourse, where western ideas are unsuitable and

counterproductive in contexts of state failure and post-

conflict.

Critical authors call for the type of reflexivity behind Cox’s

critical theory and advocate for an understanding of the local

and the indigenous within peacebuilding literature. Richmond

(2011) denounces the lack of representation of the “local”,

the “local-local” and “the everyday” in state-building. Mac

Ginty (2008) writes about the need for international actors to

hold positive attitudes towards indigenous approaches to

peacebuilding, leading to a beneficial relationship between

local and international actors where locals guide the

promotion of development and the way development is defined.

Richmond (2007) interprets the local as a source of

emancipation for peace research, focusing on the individual,

giving room to voices of dissent about the liberal peace and

maintaining a hierarchical understanding of the international.

Richmond (2007, 2011) and Mac Ginty (2008) excel in their

insistence on a focus on the everyday as a space where locals

develop political strategies towards statist and international

modes of order, yet are criticised for giving too much

significance to the impact of peacebuilding. For Newman

(2009) critical literature exaggerates the extent to which

peacebuilders seek to transform states and societies, often

assuming a coherent imperialist agenda. He highlights the

fact that critical approaches are accused of problematizing

everything as they take nothing at face value.

The cry for an ethnography that deals with the local and

explores its true meaning and understanding of peace is a

necessary methodological consideration being put in place by

critical scholars and one that should be promoted within the

research agenda of critical peace research. Yet the problem

is with the introduction of a divisive categorization of

interventions as top-down and bottom-up, which seems to

disconnect the international and the local both in theory and

practice. Newman (2009) establishes the difference: top-down

approaches are characterized by a realist exercise of

achieving security and stability through negotiations between

power holders and bottom-up approaches place attention to

sources of conflict, accommodating conflicting communities and

engaging with civil society actors in a community-focused

approach. He insists that bottom-up advocates are critical of

top-down approaches as they perpetuate a negative form of

peace. This is seen in Richmond (2011) who rejects top-down

responses to liberal peace critiques of excessive

institutionalism that assume that the top-down will trickle

down to the bottom which will engage in a democratic process

that will bring life to the social contract. Haider (2012)

states that a top-down state-building approach focuses on

stabilization, security and creation of government

institution, different from a bottom-up model focused on

conflict prevention and the creation of local capacities for

peace.

These distinctions and critiques separate the “top” and the

“bottom” to the point that peacebuilding can be approached as

an option between the two. A problem-solving approach that

deals with top concerns of coordination, efficiency and best

running of liberal institutions or a critical approach that

advocates for a localized, indigenous structuring of peace.

This critical appreciation of the local can be seen in

Richmond’s advocacy for a “bottom-up peacebuilding which does not leave

itself open to a post-colonial critique requires moving beyond the narrow confines of

liberal peace dependent on a particular form of state building” (Richmond,

2011, p.42). This concern with a divisor understanding of

peacebuilding is better viewed in the study of reconciliation

as a practice of peacebuilding, where the term has been also

cast in a top versus down perspective through labels such as

thick and thin reconciliation or through international

transitional justice and indigenous approaches to truth and

justice and reconciliation, issues which will be debated in

the following section.

DEFINING RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THIN AND THICK: THE IMPACT OF

RECONCILIATION IN PEACEBUILDING THEORY AND PRACTICE

This section will look at how the term reconciliation has been

defined in theoretical and practical debates regarding

peacebuilding in post-conflict settings. The concept of

reconciliation has become a highly contested term in both

academic and practitioner debates as the term has connotations

derived from many sources and areas of knowledge: theology,

law, psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc. Due to its

wide array of definitions, it has been subject to top-down and

bottom-up views that, similar as with the debates around the

liberal peace, has divided theory and practice into two

options, one linked to state-building practices and the other

related to grounded or localized approaches.

It has become an important activity within the framework for

international interventions in post-conflict settings and one

that has caught the attention of donors and international

organizations. For international organizations, the state-

building component of reconciliation is heightened. For

instance, as an output of the 2012 U.N. workshop titled Building

Just Societies: Reconciliation in Transitional Settings, the U.N. defines

reconciliation as

“…building or rebuilding relationships damaged by violence and coercion, not only

among people and groups in society, but also between people/citizens and the

state… (with) specific consideration to societal stakeholders that have a great

interest in reconciliation and peacebuilding, without having a strong or organized

voice, e.g., victims, youth, ex-combatants, displaced people, diasporas, women, etc.”

(Sánchez and Rognvik, 2012, p. 6)

One of the key elements of the document is the recognition of

reconciliation as an important element of statebuilding and in

developing the role of the government, which is to facilitate

reconciliation processes in order to be accountable to

societies and to build confidence among the public. Another

approach which suggests a high involvement of the state in

reconciliation is one taken by the OSCE. In a workshop titled

Towards a Strategy for Reconciliation in the OSCE Area, reconciliation is

defined as

“…an on-going, non-linear process involving the creation or restoration of

relationships on political and societal levels. It was underlined that reconciliation

can take place between and within states and is based on notions of trust, equality,

acceptance of differences, partnership, mutual or joint interests and positive

perceptions of the other.”

(OSCE, 2012, p. 2)

In the OSCE document, reconciliation is set as a process of

building bridges, between or within states and their

societies, giving reconciliation a multidimensional

perspective: it has political, social, economic,

institutional, scientific, regional and international

implications.

On the other hand, various authors dedicated to exploring the

connections and dilemmas of reconciliation within

peacebuilding have defended more localized approaches to

reconciliation, stating that the focus is not necessarily

state-society relations but relations between former

adversaries, between individuals and communities. Wagner and

Winter (2001) share the idea that reconciliation involves

relationship-restoration but see it as a process that either

brings people who have had a conflictive history together into

a harmonious relationship. Or to bring people into agreement

on a set of historical events which leads to the capacity to

live with one another. They stress that reconciliation can be

between individuals and collectivities and can be achieved

between individuals, families and groups. Hamber and Van der

Merwe (1998) define this type of reconciliation as community-

building, a process concerned with coexistence and tolerance

which requires the clearing of mistrust between previously

conflicting parties and rebuilding personal bonds at the local

level.

The question that seems to be in the minds of both theorists

and practitioners is that of where to locate reconciliation,

who should be the ones to reconcile and what are the best

conditions and contexts for sustainable reconciliation that

can lead to a lasting peace. The options for answering

these questions seem to imply an obligatory choice between

top-down and bottom-up, labelled as thick-localized

reconciliation and a thin-internationalized reconciliation.

“Thick” refers to understandings of reconciliation based on

relationship restoration, social healing and forgiveness and

“thin” to legal mechanisms towards a departure from violence

based on accountability (Eastmond, 2010). Thick

reconciliation is understood as unity, harmony, healing,

building of relationships and restorative justice and thin as

retributive justice, punishment of perpetrators,

democratization, institutional development and mechanisms to

stop physical violence (Hoogenbom and Vieille, 2010).

Reconciliation is thick due to the emotional component of

processes focused on community level approaches and thin when

based on institutional factors. This interpretation implies a

gap between international and local in the prioritization of

reconciliation practices: a technical-legalistic international

language of criminal justice and accountability contrasted

with a local needs-sensitive language of trauma healing,

victim acknowledgement and restorative justice.

Both models are presented as a division, a choice between

either/or that not only maintains practices separated but

inhibits possibilities for linkages. Thin reconciliation

adopts an institution-building framework that views

transitional justice, political dialogue and reform as means

for reconciliation, promoting peaceful democratic transitions.

On the contrary, thick reconciliation stems from local

practices of trauma healing, a victims approach to justice and

a grounded perception of how to deal at community level with

the wounds and barriers left by violent conflict. In order to

clarify the distinctions and to point at the divisor logic of

this debate this section will describe the differences that

thick and thin approaches to reconciliation in three respects:

justice, building of relationships and truth-telling. Not

only will the descriptions show what reconciliation looks like

both at “top” and “bottom” but also what sort of critiques

emerge from both fronts, contributing in this way to a

critical view of peacebuilding in the areas of truth, justice

and reconciliation.

JUSTICE

Justice is vital to reconciliation processes. It links the

process of building relationships with the question of how

best address a past comprised of violence, gross human rights

abuses and configuring relationships between victims and

perpetrators. The thick and thin debate focuses on questions

such as the best context and mechanisms for delivering post-

conflict justice (international, national, local, indigenous),

whether justice should be perpetrator or victim focused and on

the impact that justice can have on the prospects of

sustainable peace, commonly known as the peace versus justice

dilemma.

Justice in a thick perspective has to do with a reparative

process that focuses on recognizing victims’ pain and loss as

well as planning some sort of compensation process within the

emerging legal system. Nordquist (2006) sees that

reconciliation needs to empower victims through social,

political and economic means in order for them to leave the

role of victim and gain a position as individual members of a

community. Reparations may include financial compensation,

memorials, policies and procedures focused on protection of

communities against future violations, a compensatory justice

aimed at restoring the dignity and humanity of victims (Wagner

and Winter, 2001). This is also defined as the restorative

approach, one that focuses on social healing and

reconstruction that are linked on listening to victims’ needs

and experiences, helping develop a form of collective memory

based on their accounts of what occurred during the conflict

period (Betts, 2005). Thick justice has also to do with local

customary law initiatives, dealing with justice issues through

local practices and institutions. Shaw and Waldorf (2010)

comment that customary, localized law is highly flexible and

adaptive and can be very accessible and legitimate for the

rural poor in post-conflict settings as it deals with issues

of great concern to the rural poor (lands, family issues). It

seems to have greater capacity and practices than those

offered by traditional justice systems and can be more

responsive to local needs, providing accountability for lower

perpetrators and bystanders and also provide restitution.

A thin view of justice focuses on institutional arrangements

for the punishment of perpetrators and those who were involved

in gross human rights violations. The focus of this

perspective has to do with accountability, reformation of

national justice systems, the promotion of international

transitional justice mechanisms and strengthening of the rule

of law in order to generate trust in state institutions.

Reychler and Paffenholz (2001) explain that a focus on

prosecution has to do with punishment of perpetrators, the

advancement of a just order and the establishment of a rising

democracy that succeeds an authoritarian or violent system.

The focus of a thin reconciliation is on good governance,

constitutional, legal equality and individualizing

accountability that facilitates trust and cooperation (Kostic,

2012). Prosecutions are given great priority as they are seen

to deter future crimes, reflect a new set of social norms and

a solid process of reforming and rebuilding trust in

government institutions (Van Zyl, 2005). The concept of

transitional justice seems to acquire importance for this

perspective, understood as practices focused on juridical

answers to the ways of past repressive regimes (Andrieu,

2010). Transitional justice affirms the need to build

institutions that will seek justice and a commitment to good

governance. These processes generally include measures

against impunity, reintegration of victims and perpetrators

and a judicial reform process. This has often involved

mechanisms for international criminal justice or reinforcement

of a national prosecution service, often in the form of

criminal tribunals and a system to regulate past injustices,

investigating and punishing gross human rights violations and

processes for transforming violent conflict into peaceful

settlement.

Both views have been thoroughly criticised. Although there is

an appraisal of the role of the thick/local in defining post-

conflict justice, many express concerns with how to deal with

complex practices of secrecy, concealment and silence in

localized approaches to justice (Shaw and Waldorf, 2010). A

localized customary law is not necessarily a stable body of

rules but rather a changing set of practices, the

romanticization of customary law as indigenous and restorative

often ignores its capacity for co-option and imported

influences and the opportunities it offers for elite

manipulation and reinforcement of ideology. Thessen (2010)

reminds us of the risks of decentralized approaches: local

justice systems do not necessarily mean they reflect

traditional practices and in some cases their procedures and

penalties may strengthen traditional patriarchal structures

opposite to human rights standards and often reinforcing

divisions between customary legal systems and the formal legal

sector.

Critiques of thin views of justice argue that an excessive

focus on individual accountability and responsibility may be

seen unfair in societies that focus on collective community

identity (Kostic, 2012). Eastmond (2010) denounces a gap

between aspirations of transitional justice and experiences

and needs of local communities, as there is no link between

criminal trials and reconciliation. In the case of criminal

trials of local perpetrators these end up furthering

divisions, causing suspicion and fear. Andrieu (2010) sees

in Transitional Justice an extension of the liberal peace as

it is heavily influenced by a top-down statebuilding approach

which fails to affect local dynamics of conflict and the

meaning of people living in the ground. Critiques of thin

approaches demand a view of justice from below, one

prioritized over legal or political opinion, rejecting

assumptions of universal notions of justice (Garbett, 2004).

A key concern of these critiques is that victim’s lack of

access and participation in international trials constrains

the spaces for connecting these forms of justice with

reconciliation.

TRUTH

Revealing the truth is also linked to processes of

reconciliation and seen as vital in terms of knowing what

exactly happened in the past, giving victims the chance to be

heard and the opportunity to create an official narrative that

can dispel myths and prejudices created during periods of

armed conflict. The thin/thick debate on questions of whether

Truth Commissions should be linked to state-building, leading

to a national official (documented) version of the truth or

whether various truth(s) can be reconciled at the local and

community level in order to get perpetrators and victims to

rebuild broken ties.

Thick truth-telling has to do with a local processes and

dialogue between victims and perpetrators at the community

level that deal with trauma healing issues such as apology and

forgiveness, admission of wrongdoings and genuine expressions

of regret. Thick truth telling takes account of particular

worldviews from which local practices draw their meaning and

force, and involves also issues of silence understood as a

practical strategy in vulnerable contexts to avoid

embarrassment and conflict (Eastmond, 2010). Lerche (2002)

explains that dealing with contrition from perpetrators and

forgiveness from victims is essential in order to leave cycles

of revenge and retaliation towards a more positive status of

reconciliation. This can be done by grassroots

reconciliation projects such as trauma-healing workshops that

provide spaces for talking about past experiences, developing

local initiatives towards mutual understanding, forgiveness

and attrition (Thessen, 2004).

On the other hand, thin truth-telling has to do with national

processes that seek official records of past atrocities, often

promoted through national level Truth and Reconciliation

Commissions aimed at recognizing and admitting hidden parts of

a society’s past. Truth Commissions have been promoted as

alternatives for prosecutions, justified on the premise that

public and official exposure of truth provides redress for

victims, avoid myths that enable a collectivization of guilt

and the opportunity for society to engage in a national

dialogue that can empower civil society and connect it to the

state (Fischer, 2011). The mere fact that a government is

setting up a truth commission may be perceived as an effort to

uncover past crimes, something vital for victims of violence

(Skaar, 2013). National Truth Commissions are praised for

promoting political reconciliation via dialogue amidst lines

of political and social conflict, fostering a deliberative

democracy that encourages the accommodation of opposing

perspectives. Some advantages linked to Truth Commissions

are: breaking silences around human rights violation,

encouragement of victims to speak, exposure of past atrocities

from a victim’s perspective, creation of a comprehensive

account of past abuses and the identification of victims’

needs for rehabilitation and reparation (Thessen, 2004). For

Van Zyl (2005), establishing an official truth inoculates

future generations against revisionism and revenge, enhancing

the prospects of dealing constructively with grievances and

adding impetus to the transformation of state institutions and

reforms that ensure the promotion and protection of human

rights.

Thick truth-telling runs the peril of entrenching divisions

and enforcing hatreds in places that lack a robust civil

society, and in these cases authors prefer the reliance of a

top-down approach that can generate truth mandates for

parliaments, governments and local administrations (Fischer,

2011). Shaw and Waldorf (2010) critically view localized

approaches as easily co-opted spaces by the liberal peace.

They insist that the recognition of local circumstances in

policymaking circles has led to adaptations of these

mechanisms that do not modify at all the international

pretentions of transitional justice, leading to NGOs assuming

these processes and turning them into top-down outreach

activities or informative workshops.

Thin approaches to truth-telling are criticised for having too

much focus on the national and ignoring the real local as

there are no guarantees that a national truth can achieve

reconciliation (Lerche, 2002). Telling the truth doesn’t mean

that victims are healed right after testimony as aspects of

pain and suffering fall out of the realm of enquiries and

accountability (Eastmond, 2010). Truth Commissions provide a

general and not a personal truth which does not have the

strength to rebuild social trust and capital (Andrieu, 2010).

As Commissions determine what is included and left out of the

national narratives, they end up imposing a top-down

authoritative historical account of the past which does not

change people’s beliefs nor establish grounds for

reconciliation. Elin Skaar (2013) is of the opinion that

transitional justice gives too much value to the concept of

truth, reminding his readers that too much truth-telling can

also be counterproductive and can generate social cleavages

rather than the healing of trauma.

RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING

Despite the numerous definitions and focuses around

reconciliation, the only element that all of them seem to

agree on is that it has to do with the rebuilding of broken

relationships. This implies various levels and spaces of

interaction: international, national and local levels as well

as community, formal, political and non-political spaces. The

aim is to promote a form of dialogue and a set of activities

that can deal with animosities and hatred and allow for some

level of reconciliation (from simple coexistence or

cohabitation all the way to the reformulation of ties and even

friendships). The difference between the thick and the thin

has to do with the depth of the dialogue (whether a simple

tolerance and non-violent engagement between former

adversaries or cooperation and friendship) as well as the

ideal context for relationship building (local, community,

national).

Thick relationship-building assumes a voluntary act (as

opposed to an imposed act) in which through a set of

activities, conflictual and fractured relations are addressed

(Hamber and Kelly, 2004). These activities include:

developing a shared view of an interdependent society,

acknowledging past through mechanisms of healing, restitution

and reparation and addressing issues of trust, prejudice,

intolerance which end in accepting commonalities and

differences that can embrace those who are deemed as different

or “the other”. For Hamber and Van Der Merwe (1998) this is

community-building, a process of clearing up mistrust between

conflicting parties and a rebuilding of personal bonds at the

local level. Relationship transformation at the local level

addresses ethnic animosities and ethnic intolerance by

reintegrating relationship-transformation into peacebuilding

(Blagojevic, 2007).

For Lerche (2002), who reinterprets Lederach (1997),

relationship-building can be done through a workshop approach

aimed at changing relational dynamics between participants,

where they see beyond their feelings of victimization and

experience reconciliation. An important element of this

process is trust, which ranges from a deepened, complete trust

to casual acquaintance or collegiality. A localized view of

trust, one that aims at affecting individuals, requires high

levels of trust: a confident expectation that the other is

accepting, honest, truthful and non-manipulative (Govier and

Verwoerd, 2012). Asseffa (2001) insists that the best form of

dialogue towards reconciliation, change and transformation is

internal and voluntary rather than external and coerced, when

dialogue is external adversaries marshal and mask their

arguments, inhibiting change. An important component of thick

relationship-building is grass roots work, one where NGOs run

projects to increase trust and understanding at the local

level, providing neutral ground for former adversaries to meet

and involving ordinary citizens in programmes for physical

rebuilding, trauma healing and truth-telling (Thessen, 2004).

A thin relationship-building approach is less concerned with

localized trauma-solving approaches and more with national

processes that can help solve animosities between former

adversaries. Thin dialogue takes place at the high political

level, between warring factions’ leaders who foster

reconciliation via political agreement. This is aimed at

identifying misunderstandings, mutual recognition and the

viability of agreements in order to overcome divisions through

political commissions that channel dialogue towards security,

trust and socioeconomic possibilities (Nordquist, 2006). It

is by placing it in a political rather than a private setting

that reconciliation becomes structural and relevant for

rebuilding processes. The assumption is that reflexive

dialogue between disputing parties helps articulate their

views and needs to one other, discovering meeting points in

their narratives that fit reconciliation (De la Rey, 2001).

Van Zyl (2005) advocates for a relationship-building approach

that aims at overcoming divisions between groups and places

particular emphasis on the need of a constitutional settlement

that offers protection and reassurances to vulnerable groups.

The role of the government in the process here is vital as

they can take the necessary measures to demonstrate that

democracy serves all citizens and that diversity is a source

of strength rather than conflict.

Critiques of thick relationship-building focus on the fact

that individual acknowledgement, recognition and forgiveness

does not guarantee reconciliation between groups nor does it

lead to a national reconciliation. Schaap (2004) states that

for groups whose life forms have been disrespected recognition

at the private sphere is insufficient for restoring their

self-worth, advocating for a public recognition that

vindicates their claim to equal membership in the polity. He

insists that public, political recognition is a necessary

basis for reconciliation. In his 2008 work he further insists

that reconciliation requires a political action where the will

of the reconciled is expressed through political actors and

institutions. Pickering (2006) relies on social network

theory to suggest that institutions need to be adapted to the

process of bridging ethnic tensions, suggesting four

characteristics: a) institutions need to be ethnically

diverse, b) they need to promote ties that are acquaintance

rather than friendship based, c) must possess a norm that

allows interethnic cooperation and d) venues that promote

mutually dependant interaction among ethnic groups.

On the other hand, thin relationship-building is scrutinized

by its excessive reliance on the political system and the need

to include layers of society that may not have access to the

high level political process. Nordquist (2006) mentions that

reconciliation depends on the free will of people to change

their minds; its scope will be individually decided and never

commanded by political decision. This is also highlighted by

Assefa (2001) who insists on the voluntary essence of

reconciliation, one that requires individual self-reflection

about the individual role in conflict in order for internal

sources of change. As peacebuilding should eliminate the

beliefs and attitudes that force people to distrust one

another, reconciliation is thought as a process of social

change not directed by the state or international community

but through interactions of civil society, giving importance

to “bottom-up” approaches to social transformation (Canteh-

Morgan, 2005). Yordán (2003) contributes to this critique by

stating that processes of political cooperation and high level

social integration have been hampered by hatred, mistrust and

fear between the members of ethno-communal groups, which means

that there is a need for a low level interpersonal trust-

building process in order to deconstruct negative images that

inhibit peace.

Deconstructing reconciliation: a critical framework for

understanding peacebuilding

Having seen how critical debates around the liberal peace and

on reconciliation in post-conflict societies have established

opposing categories such as “top-down” and “bottom-up” or

“thick” and “thin”, it is the interest of this section to

challenge this appreciation for peacebuilding and find a

critical, emancipatory approach to the role of reconciliation

as peacebuilding practice. This section will propose a

framework for doing so relying on the concept of

deconstruction as a way of observing the term in a way that

can bind state building “transitional justice” practices with

grounded reconciliation approaches.

The need for a new approach to peacebuilding and

reconciliation

One of the main reasons why critical theory has found its way

into the study of international relations is the fact that

Post-Cold War politics have increased the focus on various

issues on the global agenda that were deemed previously as

low-level politics. Payne and Sambati (2004) explain that

this new geopolitical context has given way to alternate issue

hierarchies and opened up political spaces for a new greater

number of actors which include NGO’s and intergovernmental

agencies. This challenge of looking outside the state is a

cause taken by a critical theory that challenges the

foundations of international relations theory and pursue

models of thought that re-evaluate the assumptions about the

world order taken by the discipline. Linklater (2007) sees

this as the challenge of critical theory to the realist and

neorealism’s view of immutability, the assumption that

political communities cannot escape the logic of power

inherent in anarchic relations. Linklater sees immutability

as an excuse for the superiority of great powers in

determining the functioning of the international system,

stating that it is their ambitions and interests expressed in

foreign policy principles, and not immutable anarchy, the

factors that impose constraints on the international system.

When discussing the options for a critical agenda for peace,

Richmond (2007) states that the problem with IR is that it

idealizes peace through liberal assumptions, creating the need

for alternative methods such as discourse analysis and

ethnography to address problems related to justice,

emancipation and communication. He places the emancipatory

peace within the individual, advocating for a research agenda

that gives room to voices of dissent about dominant

peacebuilding models and the potential of alternative

coexisting forms of peace.

This emancipatory focus in peacebuilding focuses on the

everyday running of peacebuilding on the reality of post-

conflict settings and the spaces offered for various

understandings of peace different from but also considering of

the liberal peace. These processes are explained by Thiessen

(2012) when he describes his view of emancipatory

peacebuilding, one that broadens the narrow state-building

focus of the liberal peace and redirects it towards an

engagement with the local and the marginalized. In his

description, emancipatory peacebuilding is interested in the

day-to-day needs of conflict-affected populations and sees

state-building as a negotiation between local and

international actors, a process void of pre-determined

political models and outcomes. This model would allow local

conditions and capacities to determine the type of peace that

emerges in specific contexts.

One proposed avenue to understand the logic of new actors and

non-state agents in international relations and develop a

methodology for emancipatory peacebuilding is reliance on

interpretative analysis, one that focuses on narrative and

meaning as a source of understanding the way reality is

constructed and how it influences the decision-making process

of actors in the new world order. Jeong (2000) explains that

in peace studies interpretative understanding of social action

is helpful in analysing intentions of actors and the meaning

given to specific events. He insists that an interpretative

approach implies investigating the meaning of peace in the

context of social and cultural structures, relations and

processes, leading to an intersubjective understanding of

reality. He concludes his explanation with the idea that “the

nature of peace research cannot be separated from a dialogical process between

local meanings and global perspectives” (Jeong, 2000, pp. 45).

This linguistic turn in peace research has to do with an

interest of IR theorists in post structuralism as a critique

of modernity, relying on the understanding of works from

Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard and their contribution to social

sciences by the study of language and power. For George and

Campbell (1990), poststructuralist critique looks at the

relation between theory and practice, grounding theory as a

form of practice in order to study society and politics.

Structuralism, for them, is interested in concrete examples of

the way power is used in real social sites, places where the

nature of power relations enables a specific form of practice.

At this point, they bring narrative methods as a form of

approaching international relations, looking at forms of

textual interplay within power politics. Language here is

understood as a mean through which social identity is made

possible where discourse is a social practice that creates

social subjects and objects. They conclude with the idea

that discourse, as a form of dissent in IR, is expressed also

in theory, making theory an object and a tool of analysis.

As narrative and discourse-based methods are presented as

frames for which to critically analyse international relations

theory, then it is logical that this method be applicable to

the study of peace and reconciliation, due to the contested

and problematic nature of the meanings debate and its divisor

understanding of “thicks” and “thins”. Andrew Schaap adopts

this vision when debating whether reconciliation is in fact a

political concept. In his 2004 work where he defines

political reconciliation, he insists that it is through

language that one can establish the possibility of meaning,

judgement and action as thoughts, feelings and values are only

possible through the background provided by language. Later,

in his 2008 article he explains that the definitional

precision over reconciliation can polarize populations and

when its meaning is overdetermined, reconciliation becomes

ideological as it seeks to discipline conflict rendering

disagreement resolvable only in terms defined by a new regime.

This is why a narrative approach is required, to look at the

variety of meanings around reconciliation within divided

communities; their points of convergence, which can create

negotiated spaces between state-building and reconciliation

practice, and their points of divergence which can point to

feasible alternative forms of peace. This exercise is

mentioned by Wagner and Winter (2001) for whom a methodology

that maps the complexities of meaning around reconciliation,

its points of clarity, consensus and also confusion can help

develop theories, policies and practices that promote peaceful

societies. This is underpinned by the idea that

reconciliation is a morally-charged term, one that is created

by individuals’ own ideological bias as

“…an individual definition or understanding of reconciliation is generally informed

by their basic beliefs about the world” (Hamber and Kelly, 2004, p. XX)

Deconstructing reconciliation: the role of ideology in

interpretations of peacebuilding

As expressed previously, the dividing logic evidenced in the

academic and practitioner views on reconciliation has the

peril of furthering an already existing divide in post-

conflict settings. The interest in defending thick or thin

views can be linked to an interest in the defence or critique

of the liberal peace, without leaving any space for

negotiation between the “top” and the “bottom”. It is

important to give voice to dissonant voices as well as the

marginalized, the local and the unheard, but this cannot be

entirely disconnected from other peacebuilding forces in post-

conflict. In a document that focuses on Kosovo’s interethnic

reconciliation, Brand and Idrizi (2012) state that

reconciliation is a multi-dimensional process that requires

both engagements on the grass-root as well as on the political

level. Local organizations may play a key role in

establishing contacts between communities and people but

political disputes together with confusing institutional

setups can run contrary to local efforts, limiting the

potential for such efforts to achieve sustainability.

For this reason, this article advocates for a state-building

and reconciliation nexus in regards to practices of truth,

justice and reconciliation in divided communities after

conflict, together with a deconstructive methodology that

critically looks at the oppositions between thick and thin

reconciliation in order to point at connections that can

bridge the gap between the “top” and the “bottom”.

Deconstruction, as a Derridean technique for reading texts and

narratives, focuses on the analysis of conceptual (binary)

oppositions within discourse and narrative. Prince (1997)

specifies that analysing a narrative or a discourse helps

identify structures of thought, values and ideologies at play

when reconstructing a story or a past event. For Currie

(1998) post-structuralist narratology recognizes that the

reading process in itself constructed its object, that

structure became something projected into the work of reading

rather than a property of a narrative discovered by the

reading. As post-structuralism was seeking to build critique

around the atemporal nature of structuralist analysis in

narratives, it reintroduced the historical perspective into

criticism via deconstruction, which allowed a bridge between

literary narratology and political criticism. According to

Currie:

“The transition from poetics to politics can also be seen as a deconstructive legacy

because deconstruction introduced new methods for the unmasking of ideology.

While the term of ideology had been part of the armoury of the Marxist critic and

had been broadly perceived as an anti-formalist weapon, it was a term that became

a point of convergence for the interests of poststructuralist and Marxist criticism.”

(Currie, 1998, p. 9).

According to Critchley (In Critchley, Derrida, Laclau and

Rorty, 1996) Derrida’s deconstruction becomes political as the

central theme of deconstruction is a political and discursive

production of society. Deconstruction reveals the

contingency of the social, widening the field of political

institution. Critchley sees in deconstruction a tool for

understanding the motives that can move towards a genuine and

legitimate democracy, he states that by uncovering ideology in

narratives, deconstruction recognizes that democratic action

does not require a theory of truth and notions like

unconditionality or universal validity but rather a variety of

practices and pragmatic moves aimed at persuading people to

extend their commitments to others, building a more inclusive

community. He sees in the writings of Richard Rorty how

democracy takes place through spaces for sentiment and

sympathy rather than via rationality and universalistic moral

discourse. This is the key assumption for a state-building

and reconciliation nexus; through the deconstruction of

narratives around reconciliation one can see the possibilities

for sentiment and sympathy towards peace, rather than by

rational explanations around liberalism or its critique.

Why should the state-building and reconciliation nexus rely on

narratives and semantics to reinterpret theories of the

liberal peace? Tyson’s (2006) view of Derrida helps answer

this question: it is through language that ideologies are

passed on and the channel through which we perceive our world

and ourselves. For deconstruction, language is our round of

being and he substance from which our experience and everyday

are generated. Yet for Derrida if language is the ground of

our being, it is not out of play but in the contrary it is

dynamic, evolving and saturated with ideology, our view of the

world is constructed by language, a conceptual framework that

creates our experience.

Deconstruction is concerned with ways in which reading and

understanding narratives and texts can help reveal ideology

and its influence on everyday constructions of life and

society through the analysis of conceptual or binary

oppositions. Derrida borrowed the structuralist idea that we

conceptualize our experience in terms of polar opposites, or

binary opposition (Tyson, 2006), yet he denoted that binary

oppositions are little hierarchies expressed in a narrative:

one term in the opposition is always privileged or considered

superior than the other. By identifying binary oppositions at

work in a cultural production and pointing out which member of

the opposition is privileged one can discover how ideology is

promoted under such production. According to Balkin (2006) as

the deconstructor looks for the privileged term in a binary

opposition, he can identify why one form of meaning is

considered normal, central and vital whereas another is

exceptional, peripheral or derivative. As the key task in

deconstruction is to look for the ways in which a particular

meaning is given privilege over another in the social

construction of a specific concept, the use of deconstruction

in the state-building and reconciliation nexus is twofold:

a) to support an ideological critique to the liberal peace

by looking at what is de-emphasized, overlooked or

suppressed in the ways that reconciliation is being

thought of by research subjects, engaged in peacebuilding

practice at all levels, and how this suppression

generates conflict between different meanings

b) To look for points of connection between various

privileged terms, to see if there is a space between

different agents and sources of reconciliation to build a

common ground.

The first aim reflects an interest from post-structuralism

that resonates within critical peace research: the rejection

of Universalist approaches to morality as they are viewed as

impossibilities from a philosophy of language perspective.

For Critchley (1996) there is no element within the nature of

language that serves as a basis for justifying the superiority

of liberal democracy, hence, viewing democratic advances as

linked to progresses in rationality is not useful, which in

his view requires us to stop presenting liberal institutions

from Western societies as the rational solution to problems of

human coexistence. This can be connected to Richmond’s

(2011) critique of the liberal peace: institutions have failed

to deliver on a “liberal peace for all” for their universal

pretensions and its lack of acknowledgement of local,

legitimate expressions of culture and politics.

The second aim relies on adopting a deconstructive view of

reconciliation and its identification of binary oppositions,

mapping of points of convergence and divergence in the way

reconciliation is constructed. Converging points can point to

areas where state-building and grounded reconciliation

practice can connect and find spaces for a negotiation between

different spaces of reconciliation, whilst diverging points

would show alternative forms of peace, those who have not been

considered or put into practice by the various actors engaged

in the process. This resonates with Thiessen’s (2012) call

for the need to challenge the rethinking process of

peacebuilding practice through the use of critical

perspectives to deconstruct orthodox practice and build a

critical agenda for peace operations. He considers

reconciliation as an emancipatory peacebuilding priority, that

shouldn’t be restricted by liberal demands of rule of law and

human rights but be inclusive of activities located at the

community level that reassert established social codes and

processes, regaining trust and seeking peaceful coexistence.

His emphasis is on an “Emancipatory peacebuilding (that)

pushes for the centrality of reconciliation in the politics of

peacebuilding theory and practice” (Thiessen, 2012, pp. 128).

CONCLUSION

The intent of this article is to analyse the debates around

reconciliation in peacebuilding literature as a form of

critical engagement with the liberal peace and the way this

critique has been portrayed in the field of international

relations and peace studies.

In order to understand the background and aims of a critical

approach to reconciliation and peacebuilding, it is important

to revisit some of the dominant methodological concerns that

constitute the foundations of critical theory as envisioned by

the Frankfurt School and currents of thought that advocate for

a critical approach to the social sciences. These concerns

signal to the need of a critical view of positivist stances

that deem reality as objective and measurable, ignoring

possible, feasible alternatives to the current historical

frameworks of analysis. In this process, the foundations of

critical theory are to be placed and up for grabs:

- The need historically locate both the concepts and the

researcher, admitting that history places constraints

that can be surpassed when they limit human potential.

- An interdisciplinary view of science, one that relies on

a mixture of optics and methods in order to analyse and

reinvent categories and concepts

- A focus on the way ideology and particular values

underpin social constructs, generating contradictions and

tensions that affect human beings.

Such methodological considerations have been subject of

revision and experimentation by theorists within International

Relations seeking to contest the dominance of state-centric

approaches to the study of the international system. Authors

like Cox and Linklater have insisted on the need of a critical

approach to international relations that looks at non-state

actors as protagonists of power relations in the international

system. Cox in particular has denounced problem-solving

approaches that ignore agents outside of the State and seeks

to simply make liberal frameworks to work efficiently and

coherently. Within this logic, a critical methodology to the

discipline has been called for, one that expands the research

agenda and relies on emancipation as the underlying principle.

It is in such terms that the debates around peace, and

peacebuilding have been framed under, the need to critically

denounce the reliance on institution-building formulas that

locate the State as the source for sustainable peace and an

insistence on promoting liberal market economy as a one-size-

fits-all formula for post-conflict interventions. Amidst

various forms of critique, focused on the impact and

legitimacy of peacebuilding and the forms that the liberal

peace has been either accepted, contested or reshaped, a

common feature permeates the debates: the understanding of a

“top” and a “bottom” for locating peacebuilding practice.

These two realms represent the separation between problem-

solvers and critical thinkers in the field, problem solvers

study the top and the ways state-building can generate peace

in an effective and sustainable manner, whereas critical

thinkers seem to advocate for a localized understanding of

peace, one that relies on indigenous structures and an in-

depth understanding of the “local”. Nowhere is this divide

more evident than in the study of reconciliation where terms

like thin and thick reconciliation locate this particular

activity either at the top or at the bottom, making it a

choice between institutional arrangements focused on the

rebuilding of criminal justice institutions, officially-

sanctioned truth commissions and political negotiations at the

highest political level or grounded projects of trauma healing

and acknowledgement where community-building and more

individual settings are preferred.

The article questions the need to construct these terms as

binary oppositions, and particularly the need to think of them

in terms of choices, rather than view them as interconnected

spaces for a negotiated peacebuilding between all possible

agents involved in reconciliation. As an alternative, a

deconstructive methodology is suggested, one that looks at how

reconciliation is understood and interpreted by peacebuilding

agents at all levels, accepting that peacebuilding entails a

negotiation between them rather than a separation. If efforts

are not connected, peacebuilding is likely to lose legitimacy

and fail, if efforts at the state level ignore the interests

and needs of local populations in favour of institutional

reasons they will not be accepted nor be viewed as legitimate

by local actors. And if the contrary, local practices of

reconciliation fail to engage with politics, then they will be

affected by the backlash and impact that divisor politics can

have on post-conflict divided communities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrieu, K. (2010) Civilizing peacebuilding: transitional justice, civil society and the liberal paradigm. Security Dialogue. Vol. 41 (5), pp 537-558

Assefa, H. (2001) Reconciliation. In Reychler, L. And Paffenholz,T. (eds.) Peace-building: a field guide. Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers

Balkin, J. (2006) Deconstruction. In Tyson, L. (2006) Critical theory today: a user-friendly guide. Routledge: New York

Betts, A. (2005) Should approaches to post-conflict justiceand reconciliation be determined globally, nationally,locally? The European Journal of Development Research.  Vol. 17, pp. 735–752

Brand, J. and Idrizi, V. (2012) Grass-root approaches to inter-ethnicreconciliation in the Northern part of Kosovo. Pristina: KosovarInstitute for Policy Research and Development Policy paperSeries 2012/2013.

Blagojevic, B. (2007) Peacebuilding in ethically dividedsocieties. Peace review: a journal of social justice. Vol. 19 (4), pp555-562

Bronner, E. and Kellner, D. (1989) Critical theory and society: a reader.New York: Routledge

Brown, C. (1994) Critical theory and postmodernism in InternationalRelations. In Groom, A. and Light, M. (eds.) ContemporaryInternational Relations: a Guide to theory. London: Pinter publishers

Calhoun, C. (1995) Critical social theory : culture, history and the challenge ofdifference. Oxford :Blackwell editors

Canteh-Morgan, E. (2005) Peacebuilding and human security : acosntructivist perspective. International journal of peace studies.Vol. 10 (1), pp. 69-86

Chandler, D. (2009) What do we do when we critiqueliberalism ? The uncritical critique of liberal peace. Reviewof International Studies. Vol 36. Pp. 137-155

Comstock, D. (1994) A method for critical research. InMartin, M. and Mcintyre L. Readings in the philosophy of social science.Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cox, R. (1981) Social forces, states and world orders: beyondIR theory. Millennium: journal of international studies. Vol. 10 (2)pp.126-155

Critchley, S., Derrida, J, Laclau, E. and Rorty, R. (1996)Deconstruction and pragmatism. London: Routledge

Currie, M. (1998) Postmodern narrative theory. United Kingdom:Palgrave Macmillan

De la Rey, C. (2001) Reconciliation in divided societies. In Wagner,C. and Winter, D. (eds) (2001) Peace, conflict and violence: peacepsychology for the XXI Century. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs,

Eastmond M. (2010) Reconciliation, reconstruction and everydaylife in war torn societies. Focaal, Journal of global and historicalanthropology. Vol. 2010 (57), pp. 3-16

Fischer, M., (2011) Transitional Justice and Reconciliation: Theory andPractice. In B. Austin, M. Fischer, H. J. Giessmann (eds) AdvancingConflict Transformation: The Berghof Handbook II Barbara BudrichPublishers, Opladen/Farmington Hills, pp. 406-430 

Garbett, C. (2004) My neighbour, my enemy: justice and communities in theaftermath of mass atrocity. United Kingdom: Cambridge UniversityPress

George, J. and Campbell, D. (1990). Patterns of dissent andthe celebration of difference: Critical social theory andinternational relations. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 34 (3)Pp. 269-293.

Govier, T. and Verwoerd, W. (2002) Trust and the problem ofnational reconciliation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Vol. 32(2)pp. 178-205

Haider, H. (2012) Statebuilding and peacebuilding in situations of conflict andfragility. University of Birmingham: International DevelopmentDepartment

Hamber, B., & Kelly, G. (2004). A working definition ofreconciliation: SEUPB & Democratic Dialogue: Published withPEACE II Funding Guidelines

Hamber, B. and Van der Merwe, H. (1998) What is this thing calledreconciliation? Paper presented at GoedgeDacht forum, Cape Town.

Harvey, L. (1990) Critical Social Research. United Kingdom: UnwinHuman

Held, D. (1980) Introduction to critical theory Horkheimer to Habermas.London: Hutchinson Publishing group

Hoogenbom, D and Vieille, S (2010) Rebuilding social fabric infailed states: examining transitional justice in Bosnia.Human Rights Review. Vol 11 (2), pp. 183-198.

Horkheimer, M. (1941) Notes on Institute activities. In Bronner, E.and Kellner, D. (1989) (eds) Critical theory and society: a reader.Routledge: New York.

Huyse, L. (2005) Theory and Practice. In Kelly G. and Hammer B.(eds) Reconciliation: rhetoric or relevant. Belfast: Democratic DialogueReport 17:

Jackson, P. (2011) The conduct of inquiry in international relations.Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. NewYork: Routledge

Jeong, H. (2000) Peace and conflict studies: an introduction. Hampshire:Ashgate publishers

Juttila, M. Pehkanen, S. and Vajrynen, T. (2008) Resucitatinga discipline: an agenda for critical peace research. Millenium:Journal of International Studies. Vol. 36.(3) pp. 623-640

Kelly, G. and Hammer, B. (2005) Reconciliation: rhetoric or relevant.Belfast: Democratic Dialogue report 17

Kostiç, R. (2012) Transitional justice and reconciliation inBosnia Herzegovina: whose memories, whose justice? Sociologija.Vol 54. (4) pp. 649-666

Lerche, C. (2002) Peacebuilding through reconciliation. In International Journal of peace studies vol. 5 (2) autumn/winter edition.Available at http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol5_2/lerche.htm

Leysens, A. (2008) The critical theory of Robert W. Cox: fugitive or genius? United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan

Linklater, A. (2007) Critical theory and world politics: citizenship, sovereignty and humanity. London: Routledge

Mac Ginty, R. (2008) Indigenous peace making versus the liberal peace. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 43 (2), pp. 139-163.

Newman, E. (2009) Liberal Peacebuilding debates. In Newman E.Paris R. And Richmond O. ‘New perspectives on liberal peacebuilding’.United Nations University Press.

Nordquist, K. (2006) Reconciliation as a political concept: someobservations and remarks. Department of Peace and ConflictResearch, Sweden: Uppsala University

Vienna, OSCE (2012) Towards a strategy for reconciliation in the OSCE area.Workshop. OSCE.

Payne, R. and Sambati, N. (2004) Critical theory, Habermas andInternational Relations. In Payne, R. and Sambati, N. (eds)Democratizing global politics: discourse, norms, international regimes and politicalcommunity. New York: SUNY Press

Pickering, P. (2006) Generating social capital for bridgingethnic divisions in the Balkans: Case studies for two Bosniakcitties. Ethnic and racial studies. Vol 29 (1) pp. 79-103

Prince, G. (1997) Narratology and narratological analysis.Journal of narrative and life history. Vol. 1 (1-4) pp. 39-44

Reychler, L. And Paffenholz, T. (2001) Peace-building: a field guide.Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner publishers

Richmond, O. (2007) Critical agendas for peace: the missinglink in the study of international relations. Alternatives: globallocal. Vol. 32 (2) pp. 247-274.

Richmond, O. (2010) Resistance and the Post Liberal peace.Millenium Journal of International studies. Vol, 38 (3) pp. 665-692.

Richmond, O. (2011) Becoming liberal, unbecoming liberalism:liberal-local hybridity via the everyday as a response to theparadoxes of the liberal. In Tadjbakhsh, S. ‘Rethinking theliberal peace: external models and local alternatives.’ Routledge: London

Sabaratnam, M. (2011) The liberal peace? An intellectualhistory of international conflict management 1990-2010. InCampbell, A. Chandler, D. and Sabaratnam, M. ‘A liberal peace? Theproblems and practices of peacebuilding.’ Zed Books: London/New York

Sánchez, E. and Rognvik, S. (2012) Building just societies:reconciliation in transitional settings. New York: United Nations.

Schaap, A. (2004) Political reconciliation through a strugglefor recognition? Social and Legal studies. Vol. 13, pp. 523-540

Schaap, A. (2008) Reconciliation as ideology and politics.Constellations: an international journal of democratic and critical theory. Vol.15 pp.  249–264

Shaw, R. And Waldorf, L. (2010) Localizing transitional justice. UnitedStates: Stanford University Press.

Skaar, E. (2013) Reconciliation in a transitional justiceperspective. Transitional Justice Review. Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 10,pp 2-50

Tadjbakhsh, S. (2011) Rethinking the liberal peace: external models and localalternatives. London: Routledge

Thessen, G. (2004) Supporting justice, co-existence andreconciliation after armed conflict: strategies for dealingwith the past. Berghoff research Centre for Constructiveconflict management.

Thiessen, C. (2012) Emancipatory Peacebuilding. In Matyók T.,Senehi J. and Byrne S. (eds.) Critical issues in peace and conflict studies.United States: Lexington Books

Tyson, L. (2006) Critical theory today: a user-friendly guide. New York:Routledge

Van Zyl, P. (2005) Promoting transitional justice in post-conflict. GenevaCentre for the democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF ISSUE)pp. 209 – 231.

Wagner, C. and Winter, D. (eds) (2001) Peace, conflict and violence:peace psychology for the XXI Century. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs

Yordán, C. (2003) Society-building in Bosnia: a critique ofpost-Dayton peacebuilding efforts. Setton Hall journal of diplomacyand international relations. Vol. 4 (2), pp. 59-74