Emotion-based reconciliation frameworks ignore power asymmetries and can entrench injustice.

Evidence

To conclude, we have argued that although individual emotion regulation is important for reconciliation between groups, it cannot be applied without taking into account the broader social context (i.e., the macrolevel). This context includes the power differences, historical experiences, and roles of all groups involved, because they shape group members’ responses to the intergroup relations and societal arrangements in question, as well as to the proposed interventions. Ignoring these factors has ethical implications, as it runs the risk of turning reconciliation into an individual rather than structural problem, overlooking ongoing inequalities, and undermining the potential for social change that challenges historical injustices that should be at the center of reconciliation. — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 70

To conclude, we have argued that although individual emotion regulation is important for reconciliation between groups, it cannot be applied without taking into account the broader social context (i.e., the macrolevel). This context includes the power differences, historical experiences, and roles of all groups involved, because they shape group members’ responses to the intergroup relations and societal arrangements in question, as well as to the proposed interventions. Ignoring these factors has ethical implications, as it runs the risk of turning reconciliation into an individual rather than structural problem, overlooking ongoing inequalities, and undermining the potential for social change that challenges historical injustices that should be at the center of reconciliation. Similarly, cognitive reappraisal that reduces critical consciousness of actual injustices and inequalities is problematic. Instead, it is necessary to recognize the constructive potential of seemingly negative emotions that constitute a justified response to injustice and victimization, and to foster support for actual change of these conditions that are the root of conflict and ongoing hostilities. This structural change, in turn, can be the starting point for affective change and improved intergroup relations. — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 70

Categorization

• XREF: Directly the reader’s thesis question: reconciliation mechanisms are structurally asymmetric; ignoring macrolevel context makes reconciliation individually-focused and status-quo-preserving. — connects to: Anger at ingroup advantage can motivate redress better than guilt. — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 61; Perspective taking benefits high-power groups while perspective giving benefits low-power groups. — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 46; Narrative conflict resolution trains audiences to accept false reconciliation — Theodor W. Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays…, 148 (+1 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: The inversion that structural change is the precondition for affective change, rather than the reverse, quietly overturns the usual causal ordering in reconciliation psychology and is worth sitting with.
• SEED: Could seed an essay on emotion regulation as a technology of docility: when ‘managing your feelings’ about injustice substitutes for challenging the injustice itself.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 70

Related

• Most intergroup conflicts are asymmetric in power and victimization. (similarity 0.85)
• Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali — Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires Attention to Power Differences, Critical Consciousness, and Structural Change (similarity 0.83)
• Reconciliation work must target perpetrator and high-power group members’ affect, not only victims’. (similarity 0.83)
• Anger at ingroup advantage can motivate redress better than guilt. (similarity 0.82)
• Asymmetrical power makes intergroup conflicts unsolvable by emotion regulation alone (similarity 0.81)
• Emotion reduction that enables reconciliation must follow actual structural change, not precede it. (similarity 0.80)
• Anger-reduction interventions may ethically backfire by demobilizing injustice challengers. (similarity 0.80)
• Perspective taking benefits high-power groups while perspective giving benefits low-power groups. (similarity 0.79)
• Collective guilt is constructive only when experienced by the perpetrator, not the victim, group. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Remorse about injustice functions as moral self-validation while oppression continues #expands (0.85)
• Narrative conflict resolution trains audiences to accept false reconciliation #expands (0.82) — Theodor W. Adorno, The Culture Industry, 148