Memorialisation Between Recognition and Reconciliation

After massive human rights abuses, those who suffered need to be recognised as victims, and as people with rights. Having their experiences validated by others, especially those responsible for the wrongdoing, can help victims to regain civic trust (De Greiff 2012). Memorialisation is often assumed to foster such recognition. With their experiences unsilenced and unveiled through e.g. a memorial, victims will have reason to believe that fellow citizens now know what happened to them, and acknowledge those events as wrong. So they are more likely to re-engage in political and economic life, which should be helpful for the process of reconciliation. And yet, the actual impact of memorialisation is insufficiently researched (Hamber et al. 2010). Some evidence, including from Northern Ireland after the Troubles and South Africa after apartheid, suggests memorialisation contributes to reinforce victim-centred identities and maintain inter-group divides, rather than bridging them (Autry 2012, Brown and Grant 2015). Research on collective memory suggests possible reasons why. Intractable conflicts tend to shape group-based narratives, which may serve to justify violence committed in the name of the in-group — typically by emphasising experiences of victimhood and perceived heroism (e.g. Bar-Tal 2013). Particular representations of history are crucial for the purpose of forging such narratives. But once the fighting stops, it is reasonable to assume that for the antagonised groups to reconcile with each other and with what happened to them, such self-serving narratives need to change. Under what conditions will practices that are intended to remember the past help do so? In this paper I will argue that while memorialisation in transitions may enable people who have suffered to be recognised as such, it may still make it harder for antagonised groups to reconcile. Drawing on Axel Honneth’s thinking, the paper will first explore what calls for recognition in transitions from conflict can be assumed to reflect. It will further examine evidence from practices of memorialisation in Northern Ireland and South Africa in recent years. In what sense can these be read as struggles for recognition? More generally, when people remember after periods of mass violence, who and what can be recognised? By exploring this in light of the evidence, I intend to shed light on whether and under what conditions it is reasonable to expect that practices of memorialisation will yield both recognition, and reconciliation.