Reconciliation demands rehumanizing perpetrators, which ingroup norms punish

Evidence

As Tutu (1999) has discussed, for groups to engage in reconciliation, they may have to forego seeking retribution (and perhaps reparations) and settle for restorative justice which ultimately requires a re-integration of former perpetrators so that they come to be seen as deserving of similar treatment as victims. Such an agenda may be especially hard to swallow during periods of ongoing open conflict. Indeed, groups are likely to have powerful punishments for ingroup members who suggest that perpetrators and victims share anything at all – especially the same social category. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 2011

Categorization

• DEFINE: Restorative justice defined vs retribution: reintegrating perpetrators as deserving victims-like treatment.
• XREF: Links to the collective-guilt-as-betrayal dynamic and ingroup punishment of perceived traitors familiar from literature on whistleblowers and peaceniks. — connects to: Double victimhood narratives make reconciliation via apology near-impossible. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 1543; Israeli-Palestinian double victimhood blocks viable socio-emotional reconciliation. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 1546; Dehumanizing victims lets perpetrators disengage self-sanctions for mistreatment (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Dehumanizing victims lets perpetrators disengage self-sanctions for mistreatment #expands (0.85)
• Collective violence requires dehumanizing victims into abstract categories #expands (0.82)
• Witnessing in-group atrocities shifts moral priorities toward loyalty #complicates (0.75) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2149