Bonn Center for Reconciliation Studies 

The BCRS is seeking answers to these questions:

• How is reconciliation understood in different societies, cultures, and political contexts, and what factors influence the significance of reconciliation? 
• What other terminologies are used in other societies, cultures, religions – beyond the Christian or secular, political, Western term reconciliation? 
• What social, political, and economic structures enable or impede reconciliation? 
• What is the role of federal institutions, NGOs, and international actors in supporting reconciliation? 
• How do power structures, hierarchies, and inequalities between groups influence the possibility and limits of reconciliation? 
• What social practices, rituals, and mechanisms of conflict resolution are used in different societies to demand reconciliation? 
• What is the role and meaning of justice in processes of reconciliation and redress? 
• How do collective memory, narrative, and discourse contribute to the possibility of reconciliation?
• Are there particular social, political, cultural, or economic conditions that make reconciliation processes more likely to succeed, and if so, what are they?

The discussion of each question is situated within a spectrum between reconciliation and irreconcilability.

At the core of certain scientific approaches lies an anti-paternalistic working definition of reconciliation, which facilitates forms of dialogue and cooperation that address the legacies of past human rights violations and mass violence, while also looking toward the future. This includes engagement with justice, memory, and redress policies, local development initiatives, and efforts to foster inclusive and pluralistic democratic spaces. Within this framework, the concept of reconciliation can take on different meanings depending on specific social and historical contexts—a point highlighted both by reconciliation studies and by other disciplines that engage with the concept.

Moreover, reconciliation research continuously challenges and rethinks the sociological, theological, philosophical, theoretical, and political traditions underlying its terminology. At BCRS, we argue that the concept of reconciliation adds both conceptual and practical value to the notion of peace, complementing it: whereas peace is typically formalized through treaties aimed at ending armed conflicts and halting immediate violence, reconciliation is understood as a more complex and prolonged process focused on rebuilding social relationships that have been damaged through violence in its various forms. These processes are rarely linear; rather, they are shaped by competing terminologies, diverse perceptions, existing power structures, and memory cultures in both the public and private spheres.

Researchers at the BCRS operate from a minimal working definition, which understands reconciliation as peaceful coexistence and the transformation of enduring hostility between groups (e.g., communities, nations) toward a more ambitious conception that includes the potential for (re)building mutual relationships of respect, recognition, cooperation, and trust. However, the specific features of reconciliation are contingent on context: the historical, political, social, and cultural circumstances that shape reconciliation processes must be carefully considered. Accordingly, the BCRS does not seek a universal formula for reconciliation; rather, it observes, compares, and analyzes social dynamics, institutional frameworks, and the significance of reconciliation across diverse contexts, employing social science methods that are continuously refined. This work necessarily involves collaboration with national and international partners.