Tagged: “Dr. Robert Enright”
‘Racialized’ Forgiveness?
An author, Myisha Cherry, in the journal, Hypatia in 2021, made the claim that under certain circumstances, forgiveness becomes “racialized.” In her words in that article:
“Cases that exemplify certain conditions that I take as paradigmatic of the problem of racialized forgiveness includes instances in which: A. Who is forgiven or not is (overtly or tacitly) determined by the race of the offender. B. Praise and criticisms of forgiveness are determined by the race of the victim. C. Praise and criticisms of forgiveness are, at least implicitly, racially self-serving.”
Image from Pexels.com
Yet, we would have preferred that the two words, “racialized” and “forgiveness” were not put together because there are no such aspects of true forgiveness. A more appropriate pairing of words would be “racialized pseudo-forgiveness” or “racialized false forgiveness” because that is what is happening. Aristotle reminded us that any moral virtue is bounded by two vices, one which is an under-representation (for example, in the case of forgiveness the person exhibits moral weakness in which others dominate the one who is trying to forgive) and one that is an excess of the virtue (in the case of forgiving, the one who supposedly forgives is actually using forgiveness as a weapon to dominate others). “Racialized false forgiveness” actually is a vice, not a moral virtue, in which the person uses forgiveness to dominate others. This, of course, is not forgiveness at all and it should be recognized as such. To equate “racialized forgiveness” with the true form of forgiveness is philosophically incorrect. Dr. Cherry has a book-length work (Failures of Forgiveness, 2023) in which she continues with these ideas. It is good that she is pointing out this excess of forgiveness, but in the future, this needs to be classified not as the moral virtue of forgiveness but as a distortion of it.
‘Psychology Today’ features Dr. Enright story on becoming proficient in forgiveness!
Image by Pexels.com
Dr. Enright is a regular blog writer for the national magazine, Psychology Today. On Wednesday, May 22, his most recent blog entitled, ‘Growing Proficient in Forgiving: Practice Small Acts of Love’, was featured as the “banner story at the top of the site,” which is similar to being the cover story in a magazine.
Check out the essay by clicking this link!
I still don’t understand forgiveness without reconciliation. Don’t some people need reconciliation to complete the forgiveness process?
Reconciliation, in a genuine sense, does bring forgiveness to a more complete end. So, yes, reconciliation is important, but not necessary to have engaged in the moral virtue of forgiving. Why is this the case? To forgive is your choice and your thoughts, feelings, and actions that are independent of the other person. It is important to realize that if the other person refuses to reconcile with you, then you can go in peace knowing that you have done your best. It can be quite freeing to realize that your forgiving in a true and deep sense is not dependent on the actions of others who have hurt you.
If I am gravely hurt by another person, is the forgiveness journey ever truly ended? In other words, might my sadness and anger re-emerge during my life?
Because we are all imperfect, it follows that we are imperfect forgivers. When we are deeply hurt by others, yes, the sadness and anger can re-emerge as you say. Yet, and this is important, as you continue to practice forgiveness, the sadness and anger lessen and your ability to more efficiently and quickly forgive increases. So, over time, the sadness and anger tend to lessen. When they come back, they usually are not as troublesome and you can practice forgiveness again with even better results than when you started. So, I encourage you to have hope as you forgive. Your sadness and anger likely will not dominate you in the future as you persevere with forgiving.
I read recently that a person linked forgiveness to evolution. Here is the scenario: In a tribe, if Person A behaves badly, he is let off the hook (so to speak) if he is valuable to the community. Suppose he is a great hunter. Those offended by him let the offense go because his hunting skills are so valuable to the community. What do you think of this?
I think it is a fairy tale that is not correct. Forgiveness is not a bargaining strategy, but instead is a moral virtue in which the one offended willingly decides to be good to the other, not for any gain at all for the self or for the community, but instead as goodness for itself. Yes, a forgiver might benefit from forgiving and a community may benefit, but these are consequences of forgiving. Consequences do not constitute forgiving itself. So, the scenario is invented in the mind of a person who is not thinking deeply about what forgiveness is and is not.
