Planning the journey from harm to right relationships.
The Reconciliation Seminar, with its Two Paths framework, is a resource for identifying issues and opportunities for reconciliation.
On this page you can read a little about the core philosophy and the basic concepts behind the Reconciliation Seminar approach.
Core philosophy
A peaceful and flourishing society requires right relationships. Harming others undermines these relationships. The response to harm, as its final goal, needs to establish right relationships. What these right relationships will be like depends on the uniqueness of each situation and the capabilities of the people involved.
Basic concepts
Reconciliation: There are two ways this word is used. One is as a process to establish right relationships after they have been damaged through harm to one or more people (we are reconciling). The other is as an end state or goal, where people have dealt with the harms and established a safe way to live and flourish (we seek reconciliation, we are reconciled).
Why "seminar"?: A seminar is a gathering for deep exchange of ideas and learning. When the origin of the word seminar is also taken into account, it is a place for planting seeds so life can grow and floursih. Reconciliation can be complex and there is no simple set of steps that solve everything. So rather than approaching reconciliation as a set process of defined steps, the approach here is one that brings people together to explore how they can replant seeds so people can grow and flourish. The paths, goals, and domains, help to structure this exploration in the hope people can more easily create a safe path to a better life.
Right relationships: This means relationships that are fair, safe, and socially healthy for the people involved. They use relationship settings that free people to pursue life goals. Right relationships does not mean close relationships, though this may sometimes be the case. In situations of significant harm and risk, right relationships might involve settings where parties keep their distance from each other as an act of respect, so people can feel safe and manage social risks.
Situational analysis: This is required in complex or sensitive situations. It is the analysis of a situation based on its unique factors. Situational analysis is different to a check list approach, since relationship building is a dynamic process that can move in many directions. In simple, low risk situations, the processes for reconciliation may self-manage and not need any analysis.
Domains, not phases: The Reconciliation Seminar approach uses the Two Paths framework. While the framework has a broad general direction from harm to right relationships, the paths are not fixed. This is why it refers to domains rather than phases. At any time there can be leaps forward towards reconciliation or away from it. The domains serve to group key factors, but several domains may be active at once.
One person or group can walk both paths: For simplicity, the two paths in the framework are presented as a path for the one harmed and a path for the one who harms. In many situations, as relationships struggle or as historic decisions build up, people and groups can find they have been harmed and also harmed. Complex situations may need carefully managed conversations and processes. A critical caution here is to be alert to facts and the truth so denial and role reversal, which are avoidance techniques for the one who harms, are not mistaken for evidence of complex roles.
Compassion is a free choice: The fourth domain includes compassion as part of the path for those harmed. It is absolutely necessary to acknowledge that compassion is a free choice. Someone harmed cannot be compelled to choose compassion, nor judged negatively if they don’t choose it. It is a deeply personal choice based on the experience of harm and its consequences for a person. While the philosophy of the Reconciliation Seminar approach adopts compassion as a key factor for freeing people from harm, it is also clear in the framework that compassion needs many antecedents for it to be authentic. If people are rushed to forgive or be merciful when the other domains remain unresolved, then the result may be collusion with harm, letting perpetrators harm with accountability, leading to further harm to those already hurt.