Controversies in Military Ethics & Security Policy
Reconciliation – Placebo, Sedative or Bitter Medicine? On the Ambivalence of Dealing With a Violent Past
“Those who wish to speak of reconciliation may not remain silent with regard to the injuries, and to those who are not reconciled.”[1] The German bishops clearly articulated this insight in their 2024 statement on peace. Their message is an encouragement to acknowledge painful wounds and resist the temptation to pass over these wounds all too quickly with sweet-talk of reconciliation – something which we encounter time and again, especially also in church circles. Given that experiences of violence strike deep at the human core and can trigger shocks that are often felt for generations, the real ambiguity in social discourse about reconciliation is not surprising. A productive approach to the problem of reconciliation lies in a deeper confrontation with violence, experiences of violence and their consequences. Any meaningful talk and practice of reconciliation must be placed in this context and proven in this context.
In Germany, dealing with a violent past occupies an established and extensive place in social discourse and in the media. This is the welcome fruit of decades of often painful confrontation and discussion. Nevertheless, it is sometimes hard to avoid the impression that this media presence is often a helpless act of summoning a disturbing presence of the past which is still not understood in large parts. When we talk about a violent past, we are interested in the influence of violence and its consequences on the present situation, on our attitudes, fears, hopes, memories and wounds. In other words, we reflect on the past to the extent that it is significant in a very concrete way to understanding today’s situations and social relations. Strictly speaking, therefore, we are not talking about the past, but about the present.
Let us start with two key insights, which – experience teaches – can hardly be emphasized often enough. First, there are no master plans or blueprints for reconciliation processes. Every context is unique and the associated specific features must be respected. Not respecting these particularities would be tantamount to not respecting the suffering of the people, i.e. not respecting the people themselves. The second important experience and insight is that we encounter the same basic questions in all (often very different) contexts. These questions must be answered according to the particular historical, cultural and religious circumstances. This observation reflects the fact that people do not differ in their anthropological structure. It is also consistent with the findings of trauma research, which show that people’s responses to distress essentially do not differ culturally, whereas the specific forms of processing and integration do indeed have a large contextual element.[2] The relationship between particularity and universality in the context of experiences of violence must be recognized and addressed accordingly.
The experience of violence is the experience of extreme defenselessness and the vulnerability of human life. Torture is probably the most extreme example of this experience. Reflecting on his own experience, Jean Améry wrote: “Whoever has succumbed to torture can no longer feel at home in the world. The shame of destruction cannot be erased.”[4] Extreme violence triggers an existential shock that can lead to traumatization and is accompanied by powerful feelings of humiliation, shame and loss of face. People who have been exposed to violence find that their trust in others is extremely damaged and sometimes vanishes altogether. The victims’ reactions to violence are immediately accessible to us.[5] Less obvious to begin with, however, is the observation that the perpetrators also experience violence. This is an experience which is often no less shocking for them, as their involvement in violent processes in many cases calls their value system and self-image into question, and thus has a considerable impact on their identity.[6] A third, highly diverse group of people that is all too often overlooked is the bystanders. Anyone who has ever witnessed a street fight and not intervened, or intervened and looked bystanders in the eyes, knows what this is about: passivity out of a sense of potential threat, or out of secretly consenting complicity. Both are a turning away from the victims. For the victims, those who remain passive are part of the experience of violence, regardless of their motives. For the bystanders, the memory of this event is at best a feeling of shameful indignation, which they have to deal with. They too have their own experience of violence.[7]
Even these few abstract examples show that there is considerable diversity in experiences of violence, based on the individual roles that individuals and groups play in the processes of violence. In complex reality, one usually has to deal with countless gradations of victims, perpetrators and bystanders, as well as all possible combinations thereof. These differences and nuances are of great importance when it comes to better understanding the influence of violence on social relations and personal identities. Understanding violence also means recognizing that even violence carried out for reasons of justified self-defense or emergency assistance leaves wounds and traces on the victims as well as, in other ways, on the perpetrators. Violence and its consequences put a strain on relationships between people and groups. Not infrequently, they also put a strain on the relationship that people have with themselves. The experience of violence leaves hardly anyone untouched. It leaves a deep mark on people and has a considerable influence on the identities of all concerned. Dealing with the consequences of violence is therefore, to a large extent, dealing with damaged identities.
Interpretations and narratives as reactions to the experience of violence
The experience of violence triggers an existential shock that requires a response and an interpretation. The shaken world-view needs to be re-stabilized by understanding what happened. The ability to explain the experienced events in a meaningful way is by no means trivial. Rather, it is a question of survival – in the metaphorical and concrete sense. This is also borne out by an observation made in German concentration camps: that it was easier for those who were politically persecuted – whether they were Catholic priests, communists or social democrats – to adapt psychologically to the violent situation than it was for those who were racially persecuted. Apart from their different treatment by the Nazis, the crucial difference for many political prisoners was that they had a strong frame of reference. Anyone who was an active member of the resistance to the National Socialist regime reckoned with the possibility of imprisonment. This frame of reference helped the people concerned to understand what had happened, and they were able to locate themselves again within this framework and thus regain their vital orientation more quickly than others after the shock.[8] Solzhenitsyn reported the same experiences from the Gulag.[9]
By identifying and defining the enemy, one elucidates the causes of suffering, and this is often accompanied by a feeling of meaningfulness. The need to understand or at least deal with the individual experience of violence exists for everyone involved. This situation gives rise to complex and interactive networks of conflicting interpretations that reflect the structure of social relations that the violence left behind. These interpretations are subject to change over time according to the development of the social relations and political circumstances.[10]
For healing and reconciliation processes, it is of great importance to understand how the respective patterns of interpretation come into being and what questions and experiences they develop around. In general, these interpretations take up existing patterns, prejudices and stereotypes, and update them according to the prevailing necessities and plausibilities. These interpretations and narratives pass on experiences in ways that are often opaque, but nonetheless effective.[11] They function as containers of identity-relevant information. The challenge consists in opening these containers and carefully retrieving the often painful content. In this context, it is important for individual and social healing processes that the ability to speak and the willingness for dialog are developed. As social (communication) relationships are severely disrupted after systemic experiences of violence, there is considerable resistance when it comes to talking about these experiences.[12]
Basic orientation or matrix for dealing with a violent past
The main political challenge is to (re-)establish social relations as far as possible, which includes accepting inherent limitations. Accepting these limitations without becoming resigned to them is a matter of respect for the victims and for human dignity. If one wishes to measure the complex processes of reconciliation, it is not enough to look for political stabilization and corresponding arrangements. These all too often contribute to the perpetuation of damaged social relations.[13] Instead, it is important to develop a comprehensive and dynamic approach that can withstand the complex ambivalences of the issues to be dealt with.
The diagram depicted here – the problem matrix – shows the different elements involved in dealing with a violent past. They are interlinked in many ways. They can be thought of as a mobile: pulling on one part influences all the other parts.
Solidarity with the victims – restoring their dignity
Overcoming violence requires learning to see reality through the eyes of the victims or “others”. Reconciliation processes should be measured in terms of solidarity with and respect for the victims. The main task in this context is to do everything possible to restore their dignity. This means practical solidarity and listening to the victims and their needs. Legal, social and political rehabilitation and compensation are of great importance in this context. Particular attention should be paid to the need of many victims for safe spaces where they can express their experiences in an appropriate way and at the same time experience safety and respect. This can be important in helping to regain trust in social relationships. Building resilient relationships with victims requires “helpers” honestly to confront their own role in the violence or in the generational process.
Solidarity with the victims also requires addressing their marginalization. Such trends normally have a considerable economic impact on the persons concerned, and are usually experienced by them as a continuation of the discrimination and degradation brought about by the violence. Overcoming the victims’ poverty – where this is rooted in their history of violence – is a very serious challenge. Ultimately it cannot be met with paternalistic charity and the perhaps unconscious desire to placate them. The general discomfort felt by mainstream society when confronted with victims’ experiences is a major factor in their marginalization, and at the same time a serious obstacle to individual and social transformation processes. This is further reinforced by the similarly problematic trend toward the political instrumentalization of victims.[14] Some victim groups are used to generate political legitimacy, while others remain excluded. Heroization of individual victim groups is problematic as it indirectly contributes to the marginalization of other victims. Moreover, its narrative overinterpretation of events tends to suppress the experience of the senselessness of violence, as well as the experience of guilt, and hinder necessary conversations about these experiences.
These problematic ways of dealing with victims do not adequately respect their violated dignity. They are driven by the conscious or unconscious needs of the dominant actors in society for the fastest possible stabilization, and tend to pass over the unsettling experiences of violence. This threatens to weaken the potential for healing inherent in an examination of these experiences. A critical confrontation with these behaviors can therefore make an important contribution to the process of political and cultural transformation. The fine line between necessary political discourse and wrong political instrumentalization is not always easy to discern, given the many ambivalences of perspectives, and because examining these issues is in itself highly political. Ultimately this is a question of individual and collective self-images, which have to respond in one way or another to the highly identity-relevant experiences of violence. Accordingly, a purely humanitarian approach to the victims would be both an illusion and a way of avoiding the political challenge. This is because it is not a question of compassion, but of solidarity and justice.
Nuanced approach to dealing with the perpetrators
Along with solidarity with the victims, there is also a need for a nuanced approach to the perpetrators. Regardless of how difficult it may be, it is nonetheless essential to take their human dignity into account too. This includes offering psychosocial services as well as assistance for appropriate reintegration. Rash and generalizing punishment usually serves the social need to restore internal cohesion by marginalizing the “guilty” or by designating a scapegoat. It is not uncommon to observe the temptation to distance oneself from the hard and often unsettling facts by shifting the burden of responsibility onto others.[15] However, this is hardly a way to deal with the deep and serious consequences of violence. It is important patiently to oppose the understandable behavior of avoidance and repression. We are dealing with an often painful individual and collective process of political, cultural and not least spiritual transformation here, so it is not surprising that one encounters various forms of defense and resistance, which often make compromises necessary. As necessary as such compromises may be, it is also necessary to bear in mind who ultimately has to pay the price for these compromises. Those who make compromises must also take responsibility for their price.
Where possible, criminal persecution and investigation should play a central role in the nuanced approach to dealing with the perpetrators.[16] Otherwise, the normative foundations of society are at risk of being undermined by a de facto amnesty. The aim is to develop a nuanced view of the various forms of perpetration and responsibility, to make these known to the public in a normatively relevant way, and so contribute to overcoming false legitimizations and the associated erroneous acceptance of violence. The attempt to restore justice is essential, even if justice to a completely satisfactory extent can never be achieved for political reasons. The serious attempt alone shows that justice is to be the foundation of future social coexistence, and this helps to restore trust.
Linking the phenomenon of violence back to specific human culpability and its consequences
Violence is always the result of specific human culpability and its consequences. Looking at it this way allows us to reduce the phenomenon of violence to its true dimensions without making it appear harmless. This is all the more important as violence is often experienced as overwhelming in the relevant situations; this is reflected in and reinforces the feelings of powerlessness of those affected. Thus an essential element of successful peace and reconciliation work is to link violence back to free human action, which is therefore also culpable action. Human culpability is possible because of human freedom. So in contrast to the apparent inevitability of violence, this link back to human culpability also points to the need and possibility for change. Talking about personal culpability profoundly affects the identities of the persons concerned, and involves particular temptations that have to be dealt with.[17] These can include hiding the extent of one’s own culpability behind a curtain of excuses, or applying the idea of culpability only to criminal activities. In light of German experiences, Karl Jaspers convincingly explained the importance of a nuanced discussion of culpability. Without a nuanced view of its various dimensions, one will obtain only a problematically distorted picture of complex human reality. Given the importance of these matters with regard to a person’s identity, it will hardly be possible to encourage the persons concerned to step out of the inner confinement of their culpability and build new relationships.[18]
Confessions of guilt are closely associated with the personal and collective ability to talk and capacity for forgiveness. Forgiveness and reconciliation cannot be demanded, and certainly not in an abstract or general way. Like the experience of violence, they are concrete and specific, and can become reality only if it is clear who is guilty of doing what to whom, and who is therefore in a position to forgive.[19] It is therefore of great importance to develop political and cultural spaces and contexts in which the multi-layered and complex aspects of guilt can be spoken about and the destructive silence can be overcome.[20] With this challenge in mind, religious communities in particular can play an important role as agents of the transcendental dignity of human beings, if they face up to their own involvement in contexts of violence.
Addressing systemic contexts of violence
In light of what has been said so far, it is important to resist the temptation to place the entire burden of violent reality and human culpability solely on the shoulders of individuals. This would not be in keeping with reality, and would be unfair. Linking the phenomenon of violence back to specific human culpability and its consequences misses its purpose if it does not also take into account the systemic and structural conditions of injustice and violence. Unjust, violent regimes are characterized not least by the fact that they tend to entangle people in their actions and turn them into accomplices. In quite a few cases, this is also true with regard to the victims. Therefore we are not usually dealing with a black-and-white picture. Instead, we are looking at a painting in all possible shades of gray. The challenge is to develop a fine sense for understanding and distinguishing the shades of gray, and thus a deeper understanding of the contexts. To make the necessary distinctions, a clear idea of black and white is needed, but without succumbing to the temptation to reduce the picture to black and white.
A comprehensive investigation into the foundations, structures and impacts of injustice and violence, for example in patterns of perception and stereotypes, is essential if healing and reconciliation processes are to be strengthened on a sustainable basis. At the same time, it is important to resist the temptation to shift responsibility for violence exclusively onto the system or situational circumstances. The art lies in finding the right balance between the poles of individual responsibility and systemic contexts. Uncovering the individual and structural or systemic contexts of violence is a prerequisite for personal and social change. This includes naming the people affected by violence and its consequences – perpetrators and victims alike – and revealing their motivations and stories. In particular, the specific identification of victims (by name) is extremely significant if it is done in a dignifying manner. Revealing the stories of victims is also essential for the process of social transformation. By revealing the painful and deep wounds, the multi-layered impact of violence on society as a whole can become evident. It starts with the victims, but must not stop there if real change is to be achieved.
Reconciliation – placebo, sedative or bitter medicine?
What do the thoughts presented so far mean for the idea of reconciliation? The use of the term reconciliation is often highly ambivalent.[21] Particularly when the word is used to describe the horizon of desired social and individual developments, one should be aware of the many attempts to misuse the idea of reconciliation. Speeches about reconciliation by politicians (or the clergy) all too often display a certain superficiality in that they attempt to skip over the depth of the wounds that exist. Any such seemingly appeasing talk about reconciliation will ultimately come to nothing. This applies in particular to the kind of “perpetrator reconciliation” that demands that one should now remain silent about the past in the spirit of reconciliation. Such behavior is transparently only in the interests of perpetrators and bystanders, as it avoids the painful questioning of one’s own behavior. Victims usually experience this as a lack of respect and as a further violation.
One is therefore well advised to make careful use of the term reconciliation so that its real potential for hope is not damaged. Before we can talk about reconciliation, it is necessary adequately to articulate that which has not been reconciled. This depends on a multitude of prerequisites. Besides the necessary knowledge about the contexts, it also requires a minimum level of social and personal trust. Paradoxically, working on reconciliation sometimes requires being silent about reconciliation. It is necessary to develop the ability to bear the tensions arising from wounded relationships and identities without becoming resigned to them.
The paths to reconciliation begin with respect for the suffering of the victims or the “others”. This is both a question of solidarity and justice, and a hermeneutic necessity in order to open eyes, hearts and minds to the full reality of the consequences of violence. This requires the gradual development of a culture of multiperspectivity and dialog. It is important to understand that reconciliation is a prolonged process of personal and collective transformation. As Karl Jaspers so aptly observed in 1945: “If success is conceivable, then only in the long term.”[22] It is a path into and through conflicts that must be endured and dealt with constructively. Working toward reconciliation requires a willingness to leave comfort zones, to expose oneself to other viewpoints, attitudes and experiences, and confront oneself. Dialog usually begins not with talking, but with listening. Those who pursue these paths against all inner and external obstacles are well advised to develop an attitude of active patience. For while it is not true that time heals all wounds, healing takes time. Not everything can be healed. But it is possible to learn to live with the wounds that exist, and that is much more than people can often imagine after violent conflicts.
[1] The German Bishops (2024): “Peace to this household”. Bonn, p. 99.
[2] For a deeper understanding of the dialectical relationship between trauma and context, see also Baró, Ignacio Martín (2003): Poder, ideología y violencia. Madrid (published posthumously), pp. 366 f.
[3] The question of how to define violence is rather controversial in the research. For the practical purposes of the following remarks, however, it has proven helpful and sufficiently orienting to start with subjects’ experiences of violence. For a discussion of the concept of violence, see Heitmeyer, Wilhelm and Soeffner, Hans-Georg (eds.) (2004): Gewalt. Frankfurt; Reemtsma, Jan Philipp (2008): Vertrauen und Gewalt. Versuch über eine besondere Konstellation der Moderne. Hamburg; Arendt, Hannah (1970): On Violence. Orlando et al.
[4] (Translated from German.) Améry, Jean (1977): Jenseits von Schuld und Sühne. Bewältigungsversuche eines Überwältigten. Stuttgart, p. 59.
[5] Bettelheim, Bruno (1982): Trauma und Reintegration. In: by the same author: Erziehung zum Überleben. Zur Psychologie der Extremsituation. Munich, pp. 34-39.
[6] On this point, see the reflections and examples by Schwan, Gesine (1997): Politik und Schuld. Die zerstörerische Macht des Schweigens. Frankfurt am Main, pp. 101 ff., as well as Levi, Primo ([1990] 2015): Die Untergegangenen und die Geretteten. Munich, pp. 21 ff.
[7] The involvement of the group referred to here as bystanders in the violence can take many different forms. This is also reflected in the various theoretical approaches to this issue. In trauma research, the term “indirect traumatization” is used in this context. Cf. Kühner, Angela (2008): Trauma und kollektives Gedächtnis. Gießen, pp. 57-60. Reemtsma emphasizes the special significance of “interested third parties” as the addressees of communication through violence. Cf. Reemtsma, Jan Philipp (2008), see endnote 3, pp. 471 ff. Elie Wiesel, on the other hand, emphasizes the problem of indifference in this context. Wiesel, Elie (1986): Erinnerungen gegen die Gleichgültigkeit. In: Schwenke, Olaf (ed.): Erinnerung als Gegenwart. Elie Wiesel in Loccum. Loccumer Protokolle 25, pp. 157 f.
[8] Bettelheim, Bruno (1982): Individuelles und Massenverhalten in Extremsituationen. In: by the same author: Erziehung zum Überleben. Zur Psychologie der Extremsituation. Munich, pp. 66 ff.; Levi, Primo (2015), see endnote 6, pp. 152 f.
[9] Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr (1985): The Gulag Archipelago. London.
[10] Assmann, Jan (1992): Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. Munich; by the same author (2000): Religion und kulturelles Gedächtnis. Munich, p. 11-28; Gudehus, Christian, Eichenberg, Ariane and Welzer, Harald (eds.) (2010): Gedächtnis und Erinnerung. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. Stuttgart, pp. 75 ff.
[11] A classic example of this kind of narration can be found in the Serbian “Field of Blackbirds” narrative, which is highly projective in character. On this point, see Sundhausen, Holm (2007): Geschichte Serbiens 19.–21. Jahrhundert. Vienna, Cologne, Weimar, pp. 33-41.
[12] Jaspers, Karl (22016): Die Schuldfrage. Von der politischen Haftung Deutschlands. [1st ed. 1946.] Munich/Berlin, pp. 8-15; Schwan, Gesine (1997), see endnote 6, pp. 202 ff.
[13] In her careful examination of Hermann Lübbe’s thoughts on “communicative silence”, Gesine Schwan draws attention to the deeper psychological dimensions of the damage and its impact on democracy. Schwan, Gesine (1997), see footnote 6, pp. 69 ff. Lübbe, Hermann (2007): Vom Parteigenossen zum Bundesbürger. Über beschwiegene und historisierte Vergangenheiten. Munich.
[14] Schwan, Gesine (1997), see endnote 6, p. 245.
[15] Martin Walser made this observation during the 1963-1965 Auschwitz trial and succinctly put it into words. Walser, Martin (1968): Unser Auschwitz. In: by the same author: Heimatkunde. Aufsätze und Reden. Frankfurt, pp. 7-23.
[16] On the role of criminal prosecution and its limits, see Schwan, Gesine (1997), see endnote 6, pp. 237‑244. Walser (1968, see endnote 15, p. 20) also draws attention to the limits of criminal law: “But idealistic criminal law prefers to look at the hands. And they are simply not bloody in the case of the person who is politically or economically responsible.” (Translated from German.)
[17] Schwan, Gesine (1997), see endnote 6, pp. 42 f.
[18] Jaspers, Karl (22016), see endnote 12, p. 19; Schwan, Gesine (1997), see endnote 6, p. 42 f. Knorn, Bernhard (2016): Versöhnung und Kirche. Theologische Ansätze zur Realisierung des Friedens mit Gott in der Welt. Frankfurter Theologische Studien, vol. 74. Münster, pp. 31 ff.
[19] Knorn, Bernhard (2016), see endnote 18, pp. 34 f. and pp. 41 f.
[20] Schwan, Gesine (1997), see endnote 6, pp. 217 f.
[21] On the multifacetedness of the concept of reconciliation, see Knorn, Bernhard (2016), see endnote 18, pp. 21-23.
Jörg Lüer, Dr. phil., was born in 1965. He studied modern history, Catholic theology and political science in Münster and Berlin. Since 2018, he has held the position of Managing Director of the German Commission Justitia et Pax. From 2005 to 2008, Dr. Lüer was General Secretary of Justitia et Pax Europe, and since 2009 he has been Deputy Chair of the Maximilian Kolbe Foundation.
