Ask Dr. Forgiveness
It takes courage to say no to someone who hurt you. It is weakness to forgive.
Is it weak to strive to see the full humanity in someone who hurt you? Is it weak to stand in the pain of what happened so that you do not throw that pain back to that person or to unsuspecting others? Is it weakness to return a phone call if it is requested by someone who hurt you? To forgive is heroic because you try to be good to those who are not good to you and you do this while in pain, caused by that person.
OK, so to forgive is not a sign of weakness within the one who forgives. Yet, it seems to me that as you forgive another person, you actually weakened that other. I say that because you now are on the higher ground of forgiveness and the other sees the self standing lower because of the misbehavior. Forgiving weakens the other.
This is a misunderstanding of what it means to forgive another person. When you forgive, and when the other person “sees the self standing lower because of the misbehavior,” you do not let the other, in that person’s own judgement, remain in a lower position. Instead, you, as the forgiver, can say, “Come. Take my hand so we can stand side-by-side.” Forgiving is the challenge of seeing the other and you as both possessing equal worth as persons.
In an intimate relationship, how can one rebuild trust after the other shattered that trust?
Once you have walked the path of forgiving, I recommend an attempt at reconciliation. One can slowly rebuild trust with what I call the 3 R’s of remorse, repentance, and recompense. Remorse is an inner sorrow. Is the other genuinely sorry for what happened? Repentance is words that express remorse. Has the person genuinely apologized, truly meaning it (and you usually can tell a phony repentance from a sincere one by seeing the other’s emotions). Recompense is trying to make up for what happened, within reason. Has the other tried to change so that the injustices now are minimized or even eliminated? It can take time to see that recompense is occurring on a consistent level, but as you see this more stable change, trust can begin to emerge.
I hear such expressions as “State and Trait Forgiveness” and “Specific Forgiveness vs. Dispositional Forgiveness.” Are there really different forms of forgiving?
I think this dichotomizing of forgiving is a philosophical error. “State” forgiveness refers to individual people forgiving specific people who have hurt them. “Trait” forgiveness refers to individual people having a general tendency to forgive many other people for many different offenses. Aristotle reminds us that as each person grows in any moral virtue through practice (and forgiveness is one of those moral virtues), then there is a tendency to develop a love of that virtue. As the person develops this love of forgiveness then there is a tendency to forgive others whenever there is an injustice. So, “Trait” or “Dispositional” forgiving occurs when a person first has a lot of practice with specific forgiving toward specific people. Such a person eventually shows a maturity in how this now is understood, valued, and expressed. Forgiveness should not be dichotomized into “State and Trait” forgiveness. Instead, we should see these as being on a continuum, with the love of the virtue appearing after a period of struggle and time.
I have been reading some of the social scientific literature on forgiveness and I am a bit confused. I see a lot of different definitions of forgiveness out there. Is forgiveness more than one thing?
To forgive another is a moral virtue of being good to those who are not good to you. I am going to give you a little philosophy here based on Aristotle. He made the distinction between what he called the Essence of any moral virtue and the Existence of that virtue. Essence asks this question: What is the objective meaning of forgiveness that is consistent across cultures and across historical time? Existence asks this question: How does the fundamental sense of forgiveness (that is fixed across cultures and historical time) have nuances for each person and within different cultures? So, there is a fixed definition of what forgiveness is (its Essence) and yet it can behaviorally vary according to each person’s ability to forgive and according to different cultural norms for expressing forgiveness (its Existence). The differences in the definition of forgiveness (its Essence) within the social scientific literature is caused by different researchers having different views of forgiveness (including misunderstandings of what forgiveness is) and not something inherent within forgiveness itself.
