Security Is Good, Reconciliation Even Better
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
When we look around us, often the world does not feel like a safe place to live in. We are rightly outraged by the ubiquity of violence and war. The reality is, however, that tremendous efforts are being made globally to bring an end to violent conflict; in many places, societies are much safer than ever before in human history. Security is not as rare as we might think. But what is rare is genuine reconciliation.
Part of my role as Archbishop of Canterbury is visiting churches in countries of conflict and post-conflict. One of the things that strikes me more and more in my involvement in reconciliation is that it almost doesn’t exist. By that I mean actual reconciliation: the letting go of memories of destruction—not forgetting, but letting go, disempowering them, overthrowing them in the hearts and minds of individuals and societies. How often do we see that? Put simply, most of the places I go to have coexistence without reconciliation.
The first question is why that matters. Reconciliation is rare precisely because it seems like a high ideal, an optional extra once other matters have been resolved. The problem, of course, is that harmonious coexistence which is not rooted in reconciliation is fundamentally fragile. We see this again and again around the world in the re-ignition of old conflicts that seemed to have been resolved long ago. We have also witnessed it in the recent rapid polarization of politics in Western Europe, where apparently peaceful nations have been shown to be deeply, and bitterly, fragmented. Coexistence involves choosing not to seek the annihilation of the other. Reconciliation is about choosing to see the other in a radically different way: in their full humanity. It is making the decision not to be controlled by the deep wounds of past hatred (or indifference) and instead to try to forge a new relationship. It is this new relationship that gives societies and communities strength.
The second, more difficult question is what this reconciliation looks like in practice. From what I have seen, it begins with humility—and the painful recognition that I may be part of the problem, even when I have been wronged. It takes courage to look at ourselves in total honesty and identify the thoughts, prejudices, fears and behaviors that alienate us from the other. But when we do so, it becomes a little more possible to engage in deep humanity with those we would prefer to avoid or ignore. If we can build on that possibility, and go so far as to decide to spend time together and to listen, then we may even reach the stage where the other person’s identity becomes a treasure to us, rather than a threat.
[Monica Lewinsky sees light beyond the darkness of cyberbullying.]
When we do this as a society, we can begin to handle diversity creatively and sincerely, honoring one another in our deep difference. We can learn collectively to approach that difference with curiosity and compassion, not assuming that it is intrinsically frightening. We can begin to flourish together in previously unthinkable ways. Reconciliation is the transformation of alienation into a new creation, not only restored but reinvigorated.
So I think one of the greatest challenges of our time is this: Will we have the courage to seek such a remaking of our world?
This essay was originally published in 2018 in Encyclopædia Britannica Anniversary Edition: 250 Years of Excellence (1768–2018).