The role of violent histories and their legacies in reconciliation processes has been a central question in debates on reconciliation and nation building after conflict: whether, how, and when painful events should be remembered in post-conflict and post-transition societies. A dominant approach to this question since the 1980s has been the “reconciliation paradigm,” which views addressing violent histories as condition for reconciliation. A comparative study of the implementation in practice of this global paradigm by civil society–based memory activists in Poland and Israel–Palestine raises questions about its applicability. The findings point to two weaknesses: first, mistreatment of asymmetrical violence and power relations between the conflict sides and, second, the lack of systematic consideration of how reconciliation is perceived by local actors in practice. In light of these weaknesses, local memory activists developed alternative strategies to those of the reconciliation paradigm, while governments infused reconciliation with different meanings that impede reconciliation instead of advancing it. Cultivating a sociological approach to reconciliation theory, this article proposes new theoretical modifications that would expand the paradigm's applicability: reciprocity or mutual respect instead of mutual acknowledgments, a normative basis that transcends the liberal boundaries of reconciliation, and an agonistic memory instead of consensus about the past.

中文翻译：

---

调和理论与实践：面对波兰和以色列-巴勒斯坦的暴力历史

暴力历史及其遗产在和解进程中的作用一直是冲突后和解与国家建设辩论的核心问题：在冲突后和转型后的社会中是否、如何以及何时应该记住痛苦的事件。自 1980 年代以来，解决这个问题的主要方法是“和解范式”，它将解决暴力历史视为和解的条件。对波兰和以色列-巴勒斯坦民间社会记忆活动家在实践中实施这一全球范式的比较研究提出了关于其适用性的问题。调查结果指出了两个弱点：首先，虐待冲突双方之间的不对称暴力和权力关系，其次，缺乏系统地考虑当地行为者在实践中如何看待和解。鉴于这些弱点，当地记忆活动家制定了和解范式的替代策略，而政府则为和解注入了不同的含义，这些含义阻碍了和解而不是促进了和解。培养和解理论的社会学方法，本文提出了新的理论修改，将扩大范式的适用性：互惠或相互尊重而不是相互承认，超越和解的自由界限的规范基础，以及竞争性记忆而不是关于过去的。而各国政府赋予和解的不同含义阻碍了和解，而不是促进了和解。培养和解理论的社会学方法，本文提出了新的理论修改，将扩大范式的适用性：互惠或相互尊重而不是相互承认，超越和解的自由界限的规范基础，以及竞争性记忆而不是关于过去的。而各国政府赋予和解的不同含义阻碍了和解，而不是促进了和解。培养和解理论的社会学方法，本文提出了新的理论修改，将扩大范式的适用性：互惠或相互尊重而不是相互承认，超越和解的自由界限的规范基础，以及竞争性记忆而不是关于过去的。