Newsletters and Essays

JungHyun Jasmine Ryu, Ph.D
Center for Global Education, The University of Tokyo

　

1．Background

From September 16 to 23, 2025, I participated in Waseda Institute of International Reconciliation Studies (IIRS) Summer Program. Titled “Exploring International Reconciliation Studies Based on Universal Values and Collective Memory,” the program brought together scholars from Japan, the United States, and Europe to engage with the evolving field of reconciliation studies. It included the Joint International seminar with George Mason University’s Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution and various field visits including the Japanese Embassy, German Marshall Fund (GMF)and museums. While I have been part of the IIRS for three years, I realized how little I had previously engaged with reconciliation theoretical frameworks—particularly those emerging from transitional justice and identity politics. This opened a new conceptual space for me to (re)consider education as a moral and political arena shaped by histories of injustice.

The lecture series at the Carter School—delivered by Professors Gopin, Korostelina, Helsing, and Rothbart—was a particular highlight of this summer program for me as it provided a much-needed theoretical grounding in reconciliation and raised urgent questions for my own field – education. 

2. Core insights

2.1 Reconciliation is a Moral and Narrative Process

A foundational theme that ran across the lectures was that reconciliation cannot be reduced to a simple legal mechanisms or political settlements. As Professor Gopin emphasized, it is an emotionally charged and morally grounded process that requires humility, empathy, and compassion—especially toward those seen as adversaries. Professor Rothbart extended this idea, describing reconciliation as an existential reorientation of how human beings relate to each other in the aftermath of violence. His reference to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) illustrated how truth-telling was not simply about accountability but about restoring dignity, rebuilding relationships, and imagining new moral futures through values like ubuntu (an African humanist philosophy and ethical worldview). This reminded me of the testimonies (tv interviews etc.) of former comfort women in Korea, who seeked for public acknowledgment, apology, and remembrance. For them, reconciliation was not about punitive justice but about being heard, believed, and restored in their dignity through narrative processes. Their long-standing activism and insistence on memorialization underscore how reconciliation, for survivors of structural and gendered violence, often takes the form of moral witnessing and symbolic repair of their dignity rather than institutional closure.

2.2 Structural violences and identity

Professor Karina Korostelina introduced a multilayered theoretical model of reconciliation grounded in identity theory and needs-based conflict transformation. Drawing on her extensive research on protracted social conflicts, she argued that such conflicts are not just political disagreements; rather when there are fundamental threats to  a group’s identity, the denial of recognition, and the violation of deeply held human needs for security, belonging, and dignity. In her lecture, she emphasized that identity becomes politicized when it is systematically marginalized or misrepresented—particularly through educational institutions, media narratives, and public discourse. Hence, educational inequality and inequity are not just development issues measured by access or test scores, but a form of structural violence that shapes and is shaped by identity hierarchies. 

This insight was brought into sharper focus during our visit to the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture. The exhibits there chronicled the long arc of systemic exclusion, including from education (although limited). This helped me to think about how present day patterns of institutional mistrust and marginalization are shaped. This continues to evoke racial conflicts, which unfortunately seems to be exacerbating with current political climate in the US. Professor Krostelina’s emphasis on identity and moral meaning-making helped me interpret these exclusions not only as failures of inclusion, but as violations of group dignity that continue to hinder collective memory and social cohesion.

As I teach a course on global education inequality, the question that lingers is not simply whether education is equitable in access and quality, but whether it equitably and empathetically recognizes the histories, languages, and values of all communities it serves.

2.4 Justice Must Be Context-Sensitive and Multidimensional

Another key lesson was that justice cannot be pursued through a singular model. Professor Gopin highlighted the tension between legal accountability and peace: in some cases, prosecutions may deliver closure for victims but destabilize fragile transitions. Professor Helsing also emphasized that reconciliation must be attuned to context—especially in multiethnic or postcolonial societies where state legitimacy may itself be contested. He also raised a difficult but important point: that justice and reconciliation do not always unfold in tandem; in some cases, pursuing one may come at the expense of the other. I personally found this realization unsettling, as it forced me to confront the uncomfortable reality that doing what feels morally right may not always align with reconciliation. 

2.5 Reconciliation Is Nonlinear, Localized, and Ongoing

Across all lectures, one overarching takeaway was that reconciliation is not a linear process. It is ‘inherently messy, uneven, and context-dependent’. Professor Rothbart underscored that transformation often begins in everyday acts—dialogue between neighbors, rituals of mourning, and moral gestures that resist cycles of vengeance.  He also added that reconciliation is not only possible after the conflict but must start during the conflict.

This idea was deeply reinforced by Dr. Lian’s presentation on Myanmar at GMF, which introduced the model of “Reconciliation Amid Revolution.” Drawing on his own experience as both a scholar and a stakeholder, Dr. Lian offered an emotionally powerful account of how reconciliation efforts are unfolding within the context of Myanmar’s ongoing conflict. His framing challenged the assumption that reconciliation is strictly a “post-conflict” process, showing instead how healing practices can, and often must, emerge during conflict—amid violence, grief, and instability. His emotionally grounded delivery made it clear that reconciliation is not just an academic narrative, but a lived and urgent reality. Speaking about inter-ethnic solidarity, and grassroots justice under repression, he reminded us that moral repair continue where institutions have collapsed. His emphasis on community-led, horizontal forms of justice paralleled Professor Rothbart’s idea, but carried the added weight of personal risk and ethical responsibility.

3. Reconciliation and the Ethical Responsibility of Education

Ultimately, after the summer program, I was reminded once again how deeply these five insights intersect with education. Schools and universities are not neutral sites. They are political, cultural, ideological and moral arenas, where memory is shaped, identities are formed, and values are transferred. Education can be misused to drastically reproduce the exclusions and divisions—or it can become a neutral space for moral repair and collective healing.

This realization reframed how I see my own work. I now have to ask: Does global education exacerbate conflict and slow reconciliation processes? Does education silence or center marginalized voices? As an educator, do I embrace moral complexity in teaching for peace and reconciliation, or do I unintentionally deliver sanitized truths? And beyond curricula, how can universities serve as institutions of peace and reconciliation? While education alone cannot resolve protracted conflicts, but it can cultivate the ethical sensibilities, historical consciousness, and dialogic skills necessary for reconciliation among the students. It can create space for plural memories and foster the emotional literacy required to engage difference with dignity. 

For me, peace and reconciliation must be an ethos — a guiding principle for how I teach, research, and build connections among different communities.