Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

AUSTRALIA

Reconciliation balances guilt and hope

  • 30 May 2013

Before the Apology to the Stolen Generations many people canvassed the relative merits of symbolic reconciliation and practical reconciliation.

The limitations of such symbolic gestures are evident: they may make divided groups feel better about each other but lead to no material benefit for the weaker group. The limitations of practical reconciliation have also often been noted. Actions may address particular needs, but, if imposed, can further alienate the weaker group.

To lead to reconciliation, both symbolic and practical actions must flow out of a shared imaginative world. Each group must make space in their imagination for a realistic view of the often terrible events that divided them and of who was responsible for them. They must also make space for a realistic view of the enduring consequences of these actions. And they must share a hopeful vision of what reconciliation might mean for their society.

How difficult it is to reach an imaginative world in which hope and acceptance of a horrifying reality are held together could be seen in the South African Truth Commission.

It was often difficult for White South Africans to acknowledge the horrific things the government had done in their interests and the extent of the sufferings caused to Black South Africans. It was equally difficult for many to hope that out of this acknowledgment could come reconciliation. But when hope and recognition of a terrible reality went together, seeds of change were sown.

Because it is so difficult to hold together in the imagination a vision of a full reconciliation and the recognition of past wrongs whose consequences continue to be felt many generations later, it is natural to reduce the tension between hope and recognition. We minimise the wrongs and horrors of the past and the extent to which their effects mark people's lives today. And we lower our hopes for what reconciliation might mean.

It may mean moving on without confronting the past and the way it has advantaged some and disadvantaged others, or thinking up plans to deal with the problem that the other group poses. Because the causes of division are not addressed, no reconciliation takes place. Indeed what is intended to benefit people is perceived by them

Join the conversation. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter  Subscribe