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

empirical facts: counter-factual history, what might have happened
if and the history of the future, how do we avoid this in the
future. Again, let 10,000 dialogues blossom.
[8] The theatrical/reliving approach. This approach would try
exactly that: involving all parties, in 10,000 exercises to relive
what happened. This is not a question of documentation and
"objectivity", but of reliving the subjective experience. The ways
to do so are numerous, indeed.
Just telling what happened as it happened, as a witness to a
historical/truth commission is already reliving, revealing and
relieving. To have the other parties do the same adds to it. To
tell the stories together, in the same room, adds a dimension of
dialogue, easily very emotional (that's not how it happened!; is
that why you did it?) Then, to stand up, re-enact it up to, not
including, the violence, may have a cathartic effect provided
there is tension release through dialogue. The parties may even
switch roles. But isn't that coming too close? Depends; like in a
negotiation sometimes better keep them apart. The important point
is to arrive at a deeper understanding, more emotional, less
merely descriptive.
An alternative approach is, of course, for a professional to
write this up and present it on national television for common
consumption. That should not be excluded, but in plural, not with
the idea of writing one play to finish all plays.
A basic advantage of the theater approach, however
rudimentary and amateurish, is that it opens windows so often
closed to positivist social science: what might have happened if
and how do we avoid this in the future. The players can relive
79