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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

hook because they have to do something, they cannot just let it pass by. So, what do they do? Scenario 2: Guilt for trauma, hoping that will do. Y is suffering a trauma, meaning something with an identifiable cause that did hurt and still does hurt, even to the point of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). X shows signs of guilt, with identifiable cause in his own violence. The guilt hurt, still hurts and will continue hurting, "as long as I live". The hypothesis would be that through this mechanism symmetry and possibly balance have been obtained. There is no need to drizzle salt and pepper in the wound, to turn the knife around, or any other metaphor. X has enough problems with his own conscience, made credible if he adheres to a faith where the bad deed (assuming hurting Y is one) carries heavy demerit, or reduces the chances of salvation down toward zero, meaning that there is enough trauma in storage for him in the afterlife. Scenario 3: Y the victim hurts X the perpetrator: revenge The hypothesis is that trauma for trauma, and, implicitly, guilt for guilt, sticking to the moderate version--an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, with no interest--may do the job. We assume that X and Y agree on what constitutes equal amounts of violence the tit for tat, the quid pro quo, and agree that equalization means closure. They are both equipped with internal violence book-keeping machinery, both draw satisfaction from a balanced bottom line. The problem is whether Z agrees to any settlement between X and Y, Z being God or Caesar, the state or the public, only two of them, or all in one. 31
Scenario 4: Z hurts both X and Y for their violent acts Z refuses to see violence/revenge as a private (negative) deal, and punishes both for "taking the matter in their own hands". Scenario 5: X and Y together hurt Z for hurting them Z has then managed to unite, possibly even reconcile, X and Y. Scenario 6: Z hurts X: punishment/justice. Z can then be God, Caesar, the state or the public depending on epoch and circumstances. The basic assumption is the same as in scenario 3: the sum of two violent acts is zero, one cancels the other, closure. But the question remains the same: what is the basis for assuming that X will draw the conclusion (individual prevention) never to be violent again, that Y will be satisfied knowing that X suffers the violence from above known as justice to abstain from engaging in the violence known as revenge, and that Z=the public will learn neither to be violent (general prevention), nor to engage in the violence known as lynching. Scenario 7: X, Y and Z all feel guilt due to the violence Schematically the scenarios fill a matrix of shared trauma: Table 4.1 Scenarios for X-perpetrator, Y-victim and Z-authority ------------------------------------------------------------- X as receiver Y as receiver Z as receiver ------------------------------------------------------------- X as sender Scenario 2,7 Scenario 1 Scenario 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- Y as sender Scenario 3 Scenario 3,7 Scenario 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- Z as sender Scenario 4,6 Scenario 4 Scenario 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- Together they constitute a community of violence; maybe not so dissimilar from what we today (1998) have in the Gulf region and in Yugoslavia, with some disagreement as to who is X and who is Y, 32
Page 1 and 2: AFTER VIOLENCE: 3R, RECONSTRUCTION,
Page 3 and 4: The institutional breakdown, the ab
Page 5 and 6: potential. Violence is not like eat
Page 7 and 8: democracy is an answer. If the cont
Page 9 and 10: [1] The impression is given that vi
Page 11 and 12: violence till the cease-fire confus
Page 13 and 14: the underlying structural and cultu
Page 15 and 16: level of participation, a rich, blo
Page 17 and 18: up to net and gross national produc
Page 19 and 20: naive, self-exculpatory German der
Page 21 and 22: There is a special aspect of the da
Page 23 and 24: e proud of. Translated into nationa
Page 25 and 26: Cold War is by now a classical case
Page 27 and 28: and property. Creativity in life-en
Page 29 and 30: discourses good deeds may lead to s
Page 31: case, substituted the verbal duel o
Page 35 and 36: wounds to the spirit never, as psyc
Page 37 and 38: chronologically. To the four cases
Page 39 and 40: soldiers were the limbs and "we" (t
Page 41 and 42: Let us try to summarize. Who/what w
Page 43 and 44: accident. The only recourse might b
Page 45 and 46: The white lynchers, victimized or n
Page 47 and 48: massive, even collective, political
Page 49 and 50: there an underlying, universal, que
Page 51 and 52: structural specificities./55/ Thus,
Page 53 and 54: enemies into court, they did not mi
Page 55 and 56: Christian; South Africa is mixed. C
Page 57 and 58: ereaved and those who know the bere
Page 59 and 60: opportunities. There is the good th
Page 61 and 62: Restructuration: the peace structur
Page 63 and 64: exchanges of apologies and forgiven
Page 65 and 66: and traumas of the past, in a strug
Page 67 and 68: know only one good German; a dead G
Page 69 and 70: positions in a deficient structure.
Page 71 and 72: This approach only works when the v
Page 73 and 74: forgive you"? Definitely not. Some
Page 75 and 76: context, landing it in the Self-God
Page 77 and 78: victim relation is translated into
Page 79 and 80: has a system analysis epistemology
Page 81 and 82: [7] The historical/truth commission
Page 83 and 84:
empirical facts: counter-factual hi
Page 85 and 86:
the video and say: "This is the tur
Page 87 and 88:
model would be a village, a town, a
Page 89 and 90:
facilitating reliving on the spot.
Page 91 and 92:
outcome, never that violence again!
Page 93 and 94:
acts in the light of extenuating ci
Page 95 and 96:
y committing crimes of war, against
Page 97 and 98:
CONFLICT = ATTITUDES/ASSUMPTIONS +
Page 99 and 100:
Table 9.1. The praxis triad: DIAGNO
Page 101 and 102:
The democracy, parliamentarian appr
Page 103 and 104:
task of the peace worker is to appr
Page 105 and 106:
ecoming a permanent state of societ
Page 107 and 108:
destroy them; a contradiction, to p
Page 109 and 110:
The best way of building nonviolenc
Page 111 and 112:
during the second half of this cent
Page 113 and 114:
socialism-communism (the last trans
Page 115 and 116:
and death) specificity beyond the n
Page 117 and 118:
war. The working class British (US,
Page 119 and 120:
was also the outcome of insufficien
Page 121 and 122:
the possibility that this was the p
Page 123 and 124:
things, words and exercises? My wou
Page 125 and 126:
76. 77. I am particularly indebted
Page 127:
to your feelings, if you have reaso
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?