Non-Violence and Reconciliation: Dominant Narratives and Their Consequence for Peace During the 1990's and 2000's reconciliation was high on the academic agenda of various disciplines (political science, psychology, philosophy and theology) as a precondition for avoiding conflicts - privately but mainly also politically. The main question was: How can the roots of violence which have their cause in the past be overcome so that the parties can re-concile, e. g. re-assemble again around a table (practically and metaphorically). Anamnetic justice, the readiness to forgive and to compromise are central ethical notions in this context (politically as well as privately). The concept of reconciliation recently has lost some of its significance. This contribution will ask, why this is the case. One central reason, it seems. are counter-narratives. Thereby three ideal types can be distinguished, which in political conflicts are mostly interlinked. An enlightenment narrative according to which the expectation of linear progress in history makes reconciliation superfluous. It shapes Western self-understanding to this day in its liberalist, dialectic Marxist and increasingly evolutionist form (often through phases of violence). More recent is the re-emergence of a nationalist (or identitarian) counter-narrative according to which revenge for past evils, not reconciliation is the aim, stressing one's own victimhood. In this conflictive situation, the need for reconciliation as a highly complex ethical concept should again be discovered and reflected. It is based on a world view, for which neither self-producing progress nor revenge are to dominate, but human acts intending to reach peace through all means available. This will be discussed at the end of the presentation with reference to major conflicts.