Reconciliation work must target perpetrator and high-power group members’ affect, not only victims’.

Evidence

The authors do mention several steps that can be taken in this direction—for example, they state that “formal agreements do not fully resolve issues such as (but not limited to) responsibility, victimization, justice, and punishment” (p. 73) and briefly address the importance of the perpetrator group acknowledging their responsibility for the harmdoing, such as through apologies. We believe, however, that the role of the perpetrator group and societal structures put into place by those in power need to take a much more central position in the model of emotion regulation-based reconciliation. Accordingly, we argue that one should prioritize interventions targeting affective (and other psychological) processes that stand in the way of versus promote perpetrator and high-power group members’ willingness to acknowledge collective harmdoing, support transitional justice, share power, and redistribute resources in a way that positive peace and reconciliation is attained. — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 29

Categorization

• XREF: Directly addresses the reading purpose: whether guilt/reconciliation mechanisms are structurally asymmetric — this critic argues they are, since perpetrators must acknowledge harm, share power, and redistribute resources, not merely feel better. — connects to: Victims need empowerment while perpetrators need moral acceptance for reconciliation — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 37; Satisfying identity needs of victims and perpetrators facilitates reconciliation across groups. — Nurit Shnabel and Johannes Ullrich, Identity Needs in Intergroup Relations:…, 94; Reconciliation demands rehumanizing perpetrators, which ingroup norms punish — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 2011 (+5 more)
• ADDENDUM: Parallels the power-structure analysis in ‘On Sacrifice: The Real Kind, with Corpses’ — both concern how dominant groups’ mechanisms perpetuate versus dismantle hierarchy.

Broader Connections

• Victim groups need agency (vertical) restoration while perpetrator groups need moral communion (horizontal) restoration. #expands (0.88) — Nurit Shnabel and Johannes Ullrich, Identity Needs in Intergroup Relations, 66
• Victim groups seek agentic power while perpetrator groups seek moral reacceptance #expands (0.87) — Nurit Shnabel and Johannes Ullrich, Identity Needs in Intergroup Relations, 65
• Victims need empowerment while perpetrators need moral acceptance for reconciliation #expands (0.85) — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 37
• Satisfying identity needs of victims and perpetrators facilitates reconciliation across groups. #expands (0.82) — Nurit Shnabel and Johannes Ullrich, Identity Needs in Intergroup Relations, 94
• Reconciliation demands rehumanizing perpetrators, which ingroup norms punish #corroborates (0.78) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 2011
• Atonement must let perpetrator groups retain a positive moral identity #qualifies (0.77) — Nurit Shnabel and Johannes Ullrich, Identity Needs in Intergroup Relations, 155
• Nation-level reconciliation actions can follow from collective guilt #exemplifies (0.74) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 78
• Both reconciliation and competitive victimhood flow from the same underlying identity needs. #qualifies (0.72) — Nurit Shnabel and Johannes Ullrich, Identity Needs in Intergroup Relations, 29