AFTER VIOLENCE: 3R, RECONSTRUCTION, RECONCILIATION ...

Third Party, the analyst. They may or may not be useful, meaning
liberating, suggesting openings that permit individual and social
history to unfold with empathy, nonviolence and creativity,
perhaps even with some compassion. To appreciate what that might
mean, read the ho'o ponopono approach from one of the "lesser
civilizations" (chapter 8.12) and note how the reconstruction,
reconciliation and resolution blend into one.
Diachrony versus synchrony. With three tasks to be done the
question always arises: where do we start? The answer is, of
course, that this is the wrong question, springing out of a
Western, linear mind, prone to organize whatever it is on an axis
of khronos time, the diachronic (through time) way, as opposed to
the synchronic (same time) way of doing things.
Put positively: work on all three tasks parallel, not in
series. Better some small steps forward on all of them than a
giant leap on only one--bound to end with a crash landing. Here
are some of the arguments for that position, but let us first make
one point: the worst position is to let violence run its course,
simply waiting for the end before 3R can start. That is like
waiting for a flood to recede, or a fire to burn out, before any
work is done. The time to start is here, now.
Against starting with resolution only: this is looking
backward. The conflict produced the violence; it is essential to
uproot, or at least soften those causes. What is forgotten are
the new conflicts produced by the violence. People have been
deprived of their lives and their livelihood. Their goal was to
keep them and improve on them. The other party's goal was to
101