Apology in the Context of Memory and Violence (Term Paper Sample)

Apology in the Context of Memory and Violence
Author’s Name
University Association
Abstract
People have a natural pull to interact with their fellow humans, institutions, and state. The purpose of such exchanges is to develop stronger and mutually-beneficial relationships between the involved parties. Therefore, either party invests substantially to the success of these meetings. Ideally, adhering to a set laws and interaction polices leads to a form of accord between people or an individual with the state. The occurrence of a conflict and resulting violence is destroys said relationships. However, violent conflicts have greater implications on the victims and require an intermediary to employ unique techniques during the resolution process. An effective resolution must start with eliminating environmental stressors and the acknowledgment of wrongdoing. These steps allow an individual to attain closure about their horrific past and restore their dignity as individuals despite having to endure violence and its memories. Therefore, an apology can erase or sooth emotions related to violence memories when accompanied by strategic changes that demonstrate its genuineness. In this case, eliminating environmental stressors and acknowledging past wrongdoings qualifies in demonstrating such authenticity.
Apology in the Context of Memory and Violence
Introduction
The world is witnessing unprecedented rates of interactions between different communities around the world due to globalization. People from unique societies have an opportunity to meet, interact, and learn from individuals of different backgrounds. These interactions occur on social, political, and economic platforms. However, there is the potential of developing conflicts between individuals, which might spark uncharacteristic behaviors from either parties. The above example demonstrates the root of every confrontation, violent or otherwise. These feuds tend to have different causes, motivations, and advocacies, adding to the difficulty of completely eliminating them from society. The development of laws and other related policies can avoid clashes by adhering to a set of instructions during an interaction. For instance, common laws across the world condemn the stealing and taking of lives. It is paramount to note that conflict is not natural but is exceptionally common among both social and asocial animals. Therefore, people should device the means of curbing and managing clashes to avoid relationships going awry.
Conflict resolution models often revolve around accepting the present, and considering the past for a harmonious future. Most forms of conflict require either party to acknowledge the wrongdoing and apologies to their counterparts. Notably, these victims are either witnesses or direct casualties of the violence perpetrated by the accused party. Therefore, they have a burden of horrific memories that they have to work through before accepting a resolution. Violent memories are often haunting and might affect the victim’s physical and mental health. These preconditions make it difficult for the victims to automatically accept a formal apology and forgive those responsible for their tormented past (Allan, Allan, Kaminer, & Stein, 2006). Additionally, either party might be unwilling to participate in the reconciliation process, leading to a standoff. Alternatively, the perpetrator of the violence might comply with the terms of reconciliation when they are actually not sold on the idea of being in the wrong. The international community advocates for global peace by mediating between conflict regions and seeking possible resolutions. Notably, violent conflicts can vary in scale, ranging from clashes between individuals to those that are regional. Therefore, it is paramount to investigate the impact of apologies in the context of brutality and memory, and think of ways to improve their efficiency. The following questions guide this investigation: Will an unconditional apology heal the mental, physical and psychological traumas that a person is facing due to the violence perpetrated on them? Is expressing wholehearted regret good enough to bring the two parties closer to each other by forgetting the past? An apology must be accompanied by the implementation of strategic steps to curb future conflict such as removing environmental stressors to demonstrate conviction towards the cause, and invite the victims to consider forgiving these atrocities in the spirit of cohesion.
Analysis
An Apology as a Suitable Reconciliatory Tool
Part One. Violence inflicts physical force on an item to destroy, harm or damage it. Brutality among humans leaves serious physical, emotional, and psychological scars that haunt the victims over time. According to Miller and Rasmussen (2009), the daily stressors further contribute to the mental torture that these victims go through on a regular basis. People acquire violent memories through experience or by witnessing such actions or their aftermath. The gravity of brutalities might have substantial impact on the individual, similar to soldiers who experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Such combatants avoid crowded places where they might experience confusion and break down. They might mistake loud noises for a gun or bomb, triggering sudden reactions, such as taking a defensive position or going into panic. Similarly, victims of violence might continue to suffer due to the type of daily stressors that they might experience regularly. Miller and Rasmussen (2009) do not dismiss psychological trauma resulting from violent memories, and suggest addressing the immediate social stressors first as they trigger the victims to relive the horror of such recollections. Therefore, any model of resolution such as an apology would not be effective if the victim continues to recall the past relentlessly.
The process of reconciliation should account for all the multiple elements that caused the traumatic experience for a victim of violence. Notably, the paper considers an apology as the ultimate tool of reconciliation. However, apologizing to such a victim without removing the social factors that trigger their traumatic experiences is not a suitable method of resolving the associated trauma. Therefore, it is up to the intermediary authority to instruct intervention in such matters. For instance, the Berlin Wall remains an iconic tool of segregation that highlights the epitome of Cold War. The East-West division of Berlin City was more than a political statement as it saw the separation of families and friends in the thousands. Numerous people also lost their lives while attempting to cross over to the Western side of the city. Rumors about reconciliation for the two parts of the city began in April 1989 when guards abandoned using firearms to stop border crossings. The border wall remained standing for a short while after the segregation policies were abandoned and Germany was united. The demolition of the wall from either side exemplified the efforts to remove the environmental stressors that might be taunting the victims of violence. Therefore, an effective apology requires that the victim be removed from an environment that provokes their regression into a brutality-related traumatic experience.
There are numerous ways to eliminate the ravages of a conflict such as a war to inspire progressive growth. For instance, the American government has repeatedly apologized for slavery and the enactment of inhuman statutes, such as the Jim Crows laws (Stuckey, 2017). The administration further outlawed the statute and systematically integrated equality policies across the country. Therefore, an apology is most effective when the violence victims witnesses efforts to eradicate the stressors that might remind them of the past atrocities (Schmidt, 2012). Such efforts ensure that the proposed alliance has a fresh start for a positive relationship.
Part Two. Violence is common throughout human history, and it often tells the tale of two parties that have opposing ideas or convictions. Either party might feel aggrieved by the outcome of their interactions and decides to retaliate in slightly elevated form or violence. There are other forms of savagery that are unprovoked by an interpersonal interaction but are born in an external environment. For instance, an invasion by country A into country B might be unprovoked, but driven by politics or greed. In either case, the resulting brutality affects millions of citizens in country B despite their ignorance of the motivations harbored by Country A. USSR invaded numerous neighboring nations using miscellaneous ruses that set up the regions for all-out wars. For instance, the soviet regime ceased to acknowledge the presence of a Polish government in 1939, making way for their occupation of the country (Benson, 2017). Markedly, Poland was already under severe siege by the Nazi forces, leading to the development of a non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin during their occupation of the country. In Afghanistan, the soviet further incited the emergence of the Taliban who were fighting against the perceived foreign invasion. To retaliate against the soviet regime, the US and the Afghan government supported the Taliban during this period. Therefore, violence easily escalates into a never-ending cycle of retaliations that play out on different platforms. All reconciliatory efforts must seek to end the cycle of violence to reach a proper resolution.
Memories of violence are difficult to overcome when the victim is still holding on to the past events and their perceived injustices. According to Gobodo-Madikizela (2008), an apology serves the twin purpose of consoling the victims and preventing further escalation of v...