Historical conflict and resolution between Japan and China
developing and applying a narrative theory of history and identity
pp. 327-344
in: Toshio Sugiman, Kenneth J. Gergen, Wolfgang Wagner, Yoko Yamada (eds), Meaning in action, Berlin, Springer, 2008Abstract
In the social science literature on peace-making, some scholars have found it useful to distinguish between conflict resolution and reconciliation (Nadler and Liviatan 2004). Conflict resolution involves formal or structural changes to intergroup relations, often initiated by leadership, in the form of signing and honoring peace treaties, maintaining regular exchanges of group representatives, transferring land or other assets (Pruitt and Carneval 1993). However, the formal cessation of hostilities (e.g., warfare) does not mean that the two groups have reconciled. Nadler and Liviatan (2004) argue that a reconciliation perspective defines "a conflict as ending once the parties have resolved the emotional issues that may have previously left them estranged" (p. 217). In their view, conflict resolution refers to the actual cessation of hostilities, whereas reconciliation refers to more psychological factors such as removing socio-emotional barriers and building trust. Reconciliation thus can be thought of as reducing or removing the potential for future conflict by changing the hearts and minds of the people.