Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary lists four variations to define the word reconcile.[1]  The first definition is split into an ‘a’ and ‘b’ response for a more nuanced, fuller meaning of the word.  The first variation (a) is “to restore to friendship or harmony” and the second variation (b) is “settle, resolve.”  The second major definition listed is “to make consistent or congruous” and the final definition listed in Webster’s Dictionary is “to cause to submit to or accept.”  Along the same tone as the latter definition, dictionary.com includes two specific definition variations not included in Webster’s Dictionary.[2]  Dictionary.com includes “to reconsecrate (a desecrated church, cemetery, etc…)” and “to restore (an excommunicate or penitent) to communion to a church.”

Reconcile as causing submission or acceptance- today- seems to be used more commonly in the sense of submitting to one’s fate.  It is not difficult to imagine the Church, at some point in history, having taken the word reconcile and applying it directly to church affairs in the two senses listed by dictionary.com, however, these senses of reconcile would then seem to boil down- in their essence- to the “submitting” or “accepting” offered by Webster in the third variation.  Therefore, dictionary.com’s exclusive meanings are probably more of a pedantic or esoteric usage than representing a significant variation on reconcile’s meaning.

In addition to the contemporary usage of reconcile as an acceptance of one’s fate, another common usage of the word is the sense of trying to gain consistency in a state of disagreement or chaos.  This definition is represented in Webster’s Dictionary as “to make consistent or congruous.”  Generally, in this sense today, reconcile would be paired with facts or figures.  Reconcile in this sense seems utilitarian.  It almost seems to suggest a means of establishing truth or reality, such as when someone might say, ‘reconciling the facts.’  This usage of reconcile may be where the word is moving in the future, because the one synonym that Webster’s Dictionary lists for reconcile is the word adapt and “adapt” is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “to make fit.”[3]  In this sense, reconcile may be moving furthest from the word’s origins by excluding any sense of having once already been together. 

Making something fit doesn’t require that the “something” ever fit in the first place, so that reconciling the “facts” to “reality” may only indicate a need to convince rather than a need to demonstrate.  The difference here can be quite significant when juxtaposed with the first definition for reconcile from Webster’s Dictionary.  “To restore to friendship or harmony” seems to be much closer to reconcile’s original usage- as documented by etymonline.com- than any of the other variation definitions. 

Derived from the early 14^th century Latin word reconcilare, reconcile’s root words were “re” (meaning ‘again’) and “concilare” (meaning ‘make friendly.’)[4]  Etymonline.com lists the definition for reconcilare as “to bring together again.”  It seems that in its origin, reconcile contained a positive sense that what was once before will be again for at least a second time.  In the strictest sense of this meaning, something could not be reconciled if it was never before harmonious or friendly.  Submitting does not inherently suggest that there was ever any harmony, but etymonline.com does list “to make consistent” as a common usage for reconcilare beginning late in the 16^th century.  Therefore, it would be a mistake to assume that removing the “again” from reconcile is a new development in the word’s seven-century lifespan.

An interesting aspect of reconcile’s origin is the nature of the words used to define reconcilare (i.e. “to bring together again.”)  “To,” in Old English, signaled a number of concepts which included the meanings “in the direction of, for the purpose of, or furthermore.”[5]  The Old English usage of “bring” was in the form of bringan which is identified with the root “bher” meaning “to carry.”[6]  Again from Old English, “together” contained the roots “to” (defined above) and “gaedere” meaning literally “together.”[7]  Finally, the Old English form of “again” is possibly the most ambiguous of the words that defined reconcilare in the original sense.  “Again,” in Old English, contradicts itself and probably required interpretation based on the context of references, because “ongean” (the Old English root of “again”) is purported to carry the meanings of “toward, opposite, and against.”[8]

Using the root definitions of the words behind reconcile, it seems that another definition that is not really used denotatively today can be constructed.  Such an original connotative definition for reconcile might look something like, “for the purpose of carrying together toward.”  Reconcile.  The toward in that explanation could as easily be substituted with “against” which would in turn explain- and allow- “submit” as an original understanding of reconcile; however, that certainly seems to be a negative understanding of the word reconcile and would seem to exclude anything “friendly.”

In a positive sense of the origin definition, reconcile may have lost the sense of the word “again” because in Old English “eft” was the primary word for “again” but was often strengthened by “ongean” which later took on the entire meaning.[9]  This may mean that ‘once having been harmonious’ was an essential part of reconcile’s meaning.  In that case, it seems that the essence of the word refers to a common purpose being carried out in a common direction for previously established peace.  Whether “for the purpose of carrying together toward” one another or a common objective, reconcile seems to indicate unity in action and possibly in thought.

If that’s the case, then my prior statement about reconciling reality may be entirely wrong because it would seem that having a common objective is not value-based.  The objective may be determined and instilled in any fashion as long as it is simply common.  However, reconcile seems more of a positive word than negative.  This positive aspect probably stems from common inclusion of “friendly” or “harmonious” in the definition.  Therefore, it seems that a positive form of reconcile might be at its essence. 

Reconcile then may be seen as a signifier for a positive unity reestablished by common interaction; or as a putting back together of something that once was but has since become dysfunctional.