|
There is, in Scotland (and elsewhere), an important disagreement about the use of the term 'Restorative Practices’ or ‘Restorative Approaches', predominantly in the context of schools and other institutional contexts.
The two main views are as follows:
This view holds that the term ‘restorative justice’ refers to restorative processes that focus on addressing or repairing harm, but that these processes are only a subset of a larger set of processes, called 'restorative practices’ (or ‘restorative approaches’). This wider set includes processes that seek (a) to promote positive relationships within a community-setting (such as a school) and (b) to be responsive and repairing when conflict or harm arises. This larger set includes mediation and peer mediation, checking in circles, mentoring, conflict-resolution techniques, constructive communication, restorative conferences, restorative meetings, restorative conversations, restorative circles, restorative language, etc. (See here for more detail.)
This view agrees that the term 'restorative justice' refers to processes that seek to address or repair harm, but argues that terms like 'restorative practices’ should also be used in this way. Specifically, this view holds that processes that have other purposes (such as resolving conflict or communicating constructively and democratically within a group setting) should not be placed under the ‘restorative’ umbrella, but should be referred to directly, using their own unique names (such as ‘mediation’ or ‘checking-in circles’). In other words, 'restorative justice' and 'restorative practices’ should be thought of as synonymous or interchangeable: they should both refer only to processes that seek to address or repair harm. (See here for more detail.)
The diagram below may be helpful in representing these two perspectives:
It should be immediately evident from this diagram that, whilst there is a clear disagreement on the use of the terms 'restorative practice’ (and ‘restorative approaches'), there is a consensus on the use of the term ‘restorative justice’. It is on this basis of this agreement, that a win-win solution has been reached.
In other words, the following guidance has now been accepted by the majority of stakeholders in Scotland:
When reference is made specifically and exclusively to restorative processes that focus on addressing or repairing harm, then, in this context, the term 'Restorative Justice' should always be used. *
*See Restorative Justice Processes in Scotland for a list of the processes that would currently fall into this category in Scotland.
One of the dangers in this kind of solution is that, over time, it will generate various ‘sound-bites’ that are relatively easy to state and recall, but are wildly inaccurate. So it may be worth anticipating a few possibilities, and evaluating them in turn.
“In Scotland, restorative justice is thought of as a subset of restorative practices.”
This sentence is, of course, a profound misrepresentation of the case, as it excludes View B. entirely and would therefore be met with opposition by a wide range of stakeholders across Scotland.
“In Scotland, restorative justice and restorative practices are thought of as being two different things.”
This sentence is, again, deeply mistaken. Virtually no one would hold this view. It is incompatible with both View A and View B.,
No doubt, other similarly unhelpful sound-bites will emerge. But it may be worth suggesting two sentences that would capture the essence of the solution:
“In Scotland, there is a broad consensus about what ‘restorative justice’ is, and an agreement to disagree about the use of the term ‘restorative practices’.
“In Scotland, some hold that ‘restorative justice’ is a subset of ‘restorative practices’, others hold that these terms mean the same thing.”
|
