ABSTRACT
In this chapter I want to look at some of our responses to questions of reconciliation,
of how we respond to wrongs that we or our society has committed, or is committing.
In what manner do we take responsibility for them so that we can go forward in the
difficult and risky business of building connectedness both in our individual and
societal relationships? Though much of what I have to say emphasises the risky
and vulnerable forward-looking nature of this enterprise, its reflexivity and refusal
to decomplexify, this is not to say that it is incompatible with law. The enterprise of
reconciliation and law are not, as Emilios Christodoulidis (2000) claims, different
modalities that contaminate each other. In his article on reconciliation and the Truth
and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) for example, he sees some of the problems of
that institution as its close connection with law. For him, put very broadly, law looks
to the past to create a story that will make the world simple while reconciliation
looks to the future, something that will make the world risky. Since the TRC used the
language of the law it disguises that risk and makes it impossible to deal with.
