historical wrongs and rebuild trust with marginalized communities. When examining these international efforts, we can identify three general patterns or focuses: 1) past-oriented, 2) presentoriented, and 3) future-oriented processes.
In past-focused processes, the emphasis is on establishing a shared understanding of historical injustices. These processes often begin with the collection of reliable evidence and testimonies, leading to official apologies grounded in truth agreed upon by both the affected community and the state. The experiences of individuals who directly suffered the injustices are placed at the center.
Present-focused processes build on the recognition that historical injustices are not isolated in the past, but continue to shape current conditions. These processes emphasize the connection between past and present, incorporating a multi-voiced narrative that spans generations. In this model, apologies often come later in the process, after thorough discussions of ongoing inequalities and structural barriers.
Future-focused processes aim to promote long-term societal transformation by addressing the continuing legacy of past injustices and working collaboratively toward systemic change. Rather than placing primary emphasis on apologies, these efforts prioritize joint initiatives, policy development, and shared visions for an inclusive future. This model extends ownership of the process beyond the directly affected community and government to the wider public, recognizing that social justice requires broad-based commitment.
It is important to note that these three models are not mutually exclusive. In practice, many truth and reconciliation processes combine elements of all three. The boundaries between them are fluid, and there is room for innovation and new approaches that do not fit neatly into any single model.
The key takeaway is that there is no one-sizefits-all formula. Each process must be carefully tailored to its unique context, with clear goals and a thoughtful balance between addressing the past, confronting present realities, and building a shared future. For Finland’ s process with the deaf and sign language community, this means identifying the most meaningful and transformative approach— one that acknowledges past harm, addresses current challenges, and paves the way for a more just and inclusive society.
A truth and reconciliation process is an official and weighty undertaking— one that typically occurs only once for each marginalized community within a country. Because of its unique and farreaching nature, careful consideration must be given to every aspect of the process: the name, the terminology used, the definition and boundaries of the community involved, the scope of investigation, and the selection of participants and stakeholders, among others.
Transparency and accountability are essential. These principles are not only critical for building trust between the parties involved, but also for achieving the broader societal impact that such a process aims to generate. For the process to lead to real change, it must be seen as legitimate, inclusive, and just— not only by the community directly affected but also by the wider public.
If Finland and the deaf and sign language community succeed in building a meaningful and transformative truth and reconciliation process, it could serve as an inspiring example for other countries around the world. It would demonstrate that reconciliation with disability communities is both necessary and possible, and that historical injustices can be addressed with dignity, collaboration, and care.
As this process unfolds, we will be watching its development with great interest. It holds the potential to reshape how societies reckon with past harms and envision a more inclusive and equitable future.
Reference
Katsui, H., Koivisto, M. K., Rautiainen, P., Meriläinen, N., Tepora-Niemi, S-M., Tarvainen, M., Rainò, P. & Hiilamo, H.( 2024) Deaf People, Injustice and Reconciliation: Signed Memories. Routledge. London.
Deep VIEW
19