Possessing The Desire For Reconciliation

Douglas Fry, in his studies of the Semai and Zapotec peoples and in his reviews of related literature, concludes that all of the sources and case studies “emphasize that the goal of conflict resolution is to reestablish normal, harmonious relationships among the disputants” (Fry 345). Reconciliation behavior can be found in all peoples and emerges in various forms. Reconciliation behavior may include: stretching out a hand, smiling, joking, kissing, and embracing, special reconciliation meals, social gatherings of all the affected parties, rituals of drinking and smoking, and third party involvement to bring the parties together. All cultures and many animal species have in common this desire, need, and ability to reconcile their differences. In some cases, the post-conflict resolution needs to happen simply to stop the violence and to ensure the survival of the group and the individuals in the group, while in other conflicts a deeper recognition of the benefits of reconciliation by the community allows for some kind of reconciliation process to be entered into. Is it the anxiety of conflict that triggers this desire to move away from conflict and “make-up” with the other side or is it more complex than that, involving survival and productiveness of the species in general and cooperation among individuals to advance themselves in particular? The idea of reconciling differences with an adversary is complex, yet we see the behavior manifest itself in humans as well as in other animals.

The major school of thought on reconciliation suggests that this behavior is related to relationship re-building, while an opposing smaller school of thought presented by Silk (180) says that the post-conflict behavior, at least in primates, is mainly meant to signal that there is no longer an intent to be aggressive or create harm. The behavior is simply an easing of tensions and has no underlying connection to relationships or group survival. The subtlety of these differences seem trivial at first glance, yet they go to the heart of what is being studied and talked about around reconciliation, anxiety relief, relationships and conflict resolution.

Frans De Waal, from his studies of primates and humans writes,

The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior means that it is probably over thirty million years old, preceding the evolutionary divergence of these primates. The alternate explanation, that this behavior appeared independently in each species, is highly “uneconomical,” for it requires as many theories as there are species. Scientists normally dismiss uneconomical explanations unless there is strong evidence against a more elegant unified theory. Because no such evidence exists in this instance, reconciliation behavior must be seen as a shared heritage of the primate order. (De Waal, Peacemaking 270)

Does this mean that we are all born with the ability and desire to reconcile our differences? It is probably not as simple as that. The complexities of our cognitive abilities to learn how to survive coupled with our abilities to innately know how to survive, muddy the waters of the nature vs. nurture arguments. We can, however, infer from the extensive studies in non-human primates and the limited studies in humans that the existence of and desire for reconciliation behavior is something that we can count on to be present in most humans.