Introduction
In many nations where there have been conflicts between communities living together, the term reconciliation has shiftthe ed from primarily dominating the religious contexts to its utilization in political and socio-psychological debates. Increased use of the term reconciliation in these debates is attributed to the alteration of nature, and the approaches of settling warfare disbud during the post-cold war period (Rouhana, 2007).
Throughout this era, many internal conflicts within many nations have been ended. Consequently, many groups of people are able to live peacefully within one political unit of administration. Wars between various communities in different nations cannot “be brought to a halt through diplomatic agreements and arrangements alone because the conflicting groups have to live together in their general post-war conflict-oriented environment” (Kelman, 2008, p.3).
It is necessary for relationships of such communities to be transformed to build the spirit of tolerance. This paper provides a definition of reconciliation from the perspectives of psychology. Besides, it describes psychology’s attempts to facilitate reconciliathe tion with Indigenous Australians from 1990-2012. It also provides a description of the ways in which the author, as a future professional, can reconcile indigenous Australians.
Defining Reconciliation
The need to foster peaceful coexistence between two warring communities underlines the significance of peace and reconciliation commissions formed in the nations where various communities have been in conflicts in the past. According to the Australian Psychological Society (2013), reconciliation is defined as “building relationships and understanding between indigenous Australians and the wider community for the benefit of all” (Para.1).
With regard to this definition, reconciliation is the process of rebuilding relationships that have been deployed in the past. Since the discipline of psychology is interested in how people develop behaviors and how such behaviors are codified to inform people’s decisions to engage in certain actions, reconciliation is an important aspect of psychology.
Reconciliation is the process through which two parties caught up in conflicts end a relationship characterized by enmity in substitution for a relationship fostering good will together with peaceful coexistence. These two parties may be nations, individuals, or even communities. According to Cordoni and Palagi (2008), the process of reconciliation initiates when two parties in conflicts make a decision to confess acts of dishonesty or destruction done on either party (p.298).
Shnabel and Nadler (2008) add, “the greatest wounds in human history, the greatest injustices, have not happened through the acts of some individual perpetrators, but rather through the institutions, systems, philosophies, cultures, religions, and governments of humankind” (p.117) in real life situations involving reconciliation.
This means that people at an individual capacity have probabilities of distancing themselves from taking responsibility for having harmed others. This creates a challenge in the successful implementation of reconciliation efforts (Knutson, 2006; Feldman, 2009).
Institutional crimes create an impediment to the initiation of the process of honest confessions. Consequently, aggrieved parties are always left in a state of injury, together with the feeling of being offended. This hinders the acknowledgment of corporate wrongs so that the process of reconciliation is never initiated (Cordoni & Palagi, 2008).
The repercussion is the deepening of the existing hatred. The needs model for reconciliation suggests that conflicts have the capacity to destroy the moral image of the perpetrators of injustices while impairing the sense of agency or the victims (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008, p.119). Through apologies and forgiveness, such destroyed identities can be restored.
In the process of reconciliation, it is essential for transformation in relationships between warring parties to change. According to Kelman (2008), such a change needs to occur in “ the way that former enemy populations think about each other, feel about each other, and act towards one another as they learn to live together” (p.16). These changes offer a robust meaning of reconciliation. Reconciliation involves the alteration of perceptions, attitude, and behavior of one group of people towards another group.
This occurs when there is a confession of wrong doings and reasons offered for why such acts were then justified before seeking an apology or forgiveness. Reconciliation requires mutual trust, confidence, and acceptance (Feldman, 2009, p.335). However, these are the chief elements, which lack in the relationships existing between various groups of people that are enmeshed within deeply rooted conflicts.
Psychology’s attempts to facilitate reconciliation with Indigenous Australians from 1990-2012
Aspects such as trust, acceptance, and the confidence that the offending groups of people will not engage in acts that would harm the venerable group of people are necessary for the reconciliation process between indigenous groups of people caught up in historic conflicts. In Australia, reconciliation involves the process of creating awareness of the rights of all indigenous people while also endeavoring to create a good relationship between them and the rest of the communities comprising the Australian population.
Until the creation of reconciliation in Australia, other groups have made various efforts to achieve reconciliation in the country. Such groups include “The People’s Movement for Reconciliation and its predecessor and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation” (Millett & Boyle, 2005, p.5). Indeed, reconciliation cannot take place without the creation of awareness of the injustices committed to a given group of people.
It is based on the above reason that the predecessors of reconciliation in Australia attempted to educate indigenous Australians on the past wrongs committed on them. This was done in the effort to prepare them to face various challenges that influenced them socially and economically.
The Mambo decision was one of the events in which some of these challenges were addressed. This took place in 1992 when “overturning of the doctrine of ‘terra nullius’—and the release of a report that, in effect, apologized for the removal of Aboriginal children from their families during the 1950s and 1960s took place” (Millett & Boyle, 2005, p.8).
Such an effort was necessary since it provided the mechanisms of preparing people’s mentality to face the reality of the historic past in shaping their current and future life. In the process of seeking how such effects would be dealt with, an opportunity for reconciliation can be created, but with trust and confidence that such acts would not be repeated in the future.
In the early 1990s, the people’s movement for reconciliation identified several areas of reconciliation. One of such areas was the acknowledgment of indigenous people of Australia as the principal occupants of Australia.
Secondly, reconciliation needed to help in “overcoming the disadvantages suffered by indigenous people as the result of dispossession from traditional lands, separation of indigenous children from their families, and the discouragement of indigenous people from participation in Australia’s economic and social development” (Millett & Boyle, 2005, p.19).
This was considered an essential step towards enhancing the cohesion of various Aboriginal people together with Torres Strait Islanders and the wider communities of Australia.
Nurses played a central role in attempting to bring psychological reconciliation with indigenous Australian people. Their key role included all attempts to ensure that the indigenous Australian people were prepared to embrace the harsh and bitter past to look forward to the better future.
In 1990, such an effort was made when “the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was established, thus pushing for greater self-determination for indigenous people” (Millett & Boyle, 2005, p.32). Through this body, people believed that their issues would be addressed to the fullest.
This was significant in terms of the psychological preparation of the people for reconciliation. The fear of total articulation of the issues affecting the indigenous Australian people was removed. This means that such people could approach the reconciliation process with an open mind and sincerity.
In 1991, the aboriginal reconciliation council enacted and put in place various programs for enhancing recognition of culture together with the history of the aboriginal people. The council also sought to put in place mechanisms of creating awareness for the past wrongs that were done to the indigenous Australian people. Another primary concern of the council was to address various economic and social injustices that were done on the indigenous Australians.
In 1993, the native title Act was passed. The Act established the “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Land Fund to provide funds to buy land and to develop it to provide economic, social, and cultural benefits” (Millett & Boyle, 2005, p.34). This was an attempt to ensure that people who were offended by past regimes reclaimed their rights before the reconciliation could proceed. In fact, any psychological attempt to reconcile two parties cannot take place if the past injustices are not corrected.
In 1996, the Wik decision was delivered by the high court. The decision advocated for the coexistence of both pastoral rights and the native titles. Later, in 1997, “Wik Bill passed by the Senate, based on the Federal Government’s ‘ten-point plan’ and developed to amend the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)” (Millett & Boyle, 2005, p.41).
In the wake of the new millennium, reconciliation efforts have continued with the government pursuing the ‘practical reconciliation approaches’. One of such endeavors is to invest in the improvement of living standards of the indigenous Australians through improved housing and provision of equal education and employed opportunities to ensure that the indigenous Australians consider themselves equal with other members of the Australian population.
In fact, in 2001, Reconciliation Australia was created to enhance full integration of the indigenous Australians into national citizenship. By 2012, Reconciliation Australia had established various platforms for fostering reconciliation with the indigenous Australian people. They include organizations such as Australian Indigenous Psychologists Associations (AIPA) together with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People and Psychology (ATSIPP) among others.
Personal Professional Contribution to Reconciliation of Indigenous Australians
Reconciliation is a process that involves commitment of people who are engulfed in communal or individual battles to forgive each other to coexist peacefully. This means that the parties brought together in the reconciliation table must be prepared to face the realities of the dark past to embrace new ways of life. However, this does not mean that the parties need to forget about the inhumane acts or injustices done to them.
It possible to contribute in the reconciliation debate as a professional nurse by creating various social integration platforms in which issues of past injustices and/or how they influence one’s social wellbeing and behavior of the victims can be addressed.
Reconciliation is impossible if the offended party does not accept that some injustice was done to it in the past and that there is a need to end such memories and/or seizures (Kelman, 2005, p.641).
On the other hand, the offending party needs to accept that it did acts, which were inhumane to another party. Unfortunately, in the case of Australia, in 1991, the government did not show utmost commitment to the reconciliation process. This implied that there was little commitment to take responsibility of the social and economic disadvantage experienced by the indigenous Australians.
Nurses can create social integration platforms to help in bringing together both the offended and the offending parties. In the discussion boards, the offended party would articulate and explain his or her feelings about the past injustices. The offending party needs not to deny the allegation made.
Rather, the purpose of social integration platforms is to permit the victims to expresses their concerns about injustices and have the victimizers take absolute responsibility (Bar-Tal & Bennink, 2004, p.109). This way, it is perhaps possible for the victims to develop cognitions that the perception of social injustices was valid and would be addressed optimally in the discussion boards.
The importance of taking absolute responsibility is akin to the argument that the offended party has fear in living with the person he or she thinks has committed inhumane acts on it. It is crucial to guarantee that any of the acts that the aggrieved party considers amounting to an act of inhumanity.
In case the grieved party trusts that it can coexist with the perpetrators of injustices peacefully, reconciliation is enhanced (Kelman, 2005, p.640). The inhumane act-perpetrating party only needs to feel forgiven for it to live peacefully to foster the good will to the aggrieved party.
Reference List
Australian Psychological Society. (2013). Reconciliation Action Plan. Web.
Bar-Tal, D., & Bennink, G. (2004). The Nature of Reconciliation as an Outcome and as a Process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cordoni, G., & Palagi, E. (2008). Reconciliation in wolves: New evidence for a comparative perspective. Ethnology, 114(3), 298-308.
Feldman, L (2009). The Principle and Practice of Reconciliation in German Foreign Policy. International Affairs, 75(2), 333-356.
Kelman, H. (2005). Building Trust among Enemies: The Central Challenge for International Conflicts Resolutions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(5), 639-650.
Kelman, H. (2008). Reconciliation from a Social Psychology Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Knutson, N. (2006). Interest, Relationships, Identities: Three Central Issues for Individual and Groups in Negotiating Their Social Environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(11), 21-46.
Millett, B., & Boyle, M. (2005). Indigenous people: the Road to Reconciliation and Future Issues. French Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Rouhana, N. (2007). Identity and Power in Reconciliation of Protracted National Conflict. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(4), 116-132.