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

forgive you"? Definitely not. Some possible translations:
- "I apologize"="I wish what I did undone and promise, no more"
- "I accept your apology"="I believe what you say, let's go on"
- "Please forgive me"="Please release me from my guilt to you"
- "I forgive you"="I hereby release you from your guilt to me"
Thus, forgiving goes on step further, relating to the trauma
of guilt. Guilt is in the spirit, and arises from the
consciousness of having wronged someone. This establishes a
relation to the victim, to one's own Ego, and to any God/State
believed in. The victim can only release the wrong-doer from the
first guilt. To some that is the only guilt, however.
Positive in the approach is a bond of compassion between X
and Y; negative is its superficiality. Just as restitution is
good for people with money, apology is for those with words. X
agrees to see the harm as wrong, as something he wishes undone and
Y helps him saying that you can now live as if no harm was
wrought. But the causes of the violence are left untouched. The
approach is A-, not C-oriented, but hopefully with B effects.
For the peace worker this is very different from the
reparation/restitution approach. There is a transaction and both
parties have to be willing, meaning that either one can sabotage
that process. What is needed is only for the victim not to accept
the apology, or not to forgive; and for the perpetrator not to
extend any apology, or not to ask for forgiveness. The drama in
four acts is very vulnerable.
In addition, whereas there is something economic and
contractual in the process of restitution, this transaction is
spiritual/psychological. Both parties have to be "in the mood" to
70