Abstract
A rich and complex literature on reconciliation has emerged in response to political transitions since the 1990s, yet reconciliation’s value as a concept within peace studies is unclear. Definitions are contested, impressionistic or overlap with other concepts, while ‘reconciliation’ remains politically contested in many conflict-affected societies. This article considers the four leading understandings of reconciliation: reconciliation as peacebuilding, reconciliation as transitional justice, reconciliation as forgiveness, and reconciliation as identity change. Each is assessed according to whether it is (1) conceptually coherent, and (2) likely to be credible to people in conflict. The article argues that by restricting reconciliation’s meaning to a modified version of the fourth understanding – reconciliation as transformed social identity – the term can hold a distinct meaning in the peace studies field and direct a clear research agenda, as well as attract much less political criticism and misunderstanding.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
