Tagged: “Forgiveness Process”

‘Peace in the Wake of Pain’ highlights the science – and healing potential – of forgiveness

The Summer 2023 edition of On Wisconsin, the University of Wisconsin’s magazine for communicating with alumni and the general public, features a full-length interview with Dr. Robert Enright, highlighting how he developed the study of forgiveness over his years in academia to contribute something of real value to people who are suffering.

Dr. Robert Enright

Dr. Enright, International Forgiveness Institute co-founder, shares how an academic crisis led to his studying of forgiveness. As he is quoted in the article, he began to wrestle with the question, “What happens to people when they’re thrown to the mat of life by others being unfair? How do they get out of that?”

The article, entitled ‘Peace in the Wake of Pain’, goes on to share how Dr. Enright and his team have helped abused youth, prison inmates, and others who have experienced deep pain and anger discover healing and peace through entering into the process of forgiveness.

The On Wisconsin feature is a wonderful opportunity for many people to hear the good news about forgiveness and its potential for healing, peace, and restoration for individuals, families, and communities. Please share generously!

“Over the past 35 years, Enright and his colleagues have worked almost exclusively with people who have been deeply traumatized and are looking for a way out of their pain,” according to the article. “Enright says people who have suffered deeply for a long time — victims of domestic abuse, incest, and political violence, for example — are often the most likely to commit to the difficult process of forgiving the injustices done to them.”

I am beginning to realize that a huge obligation of anyone who writes about forgiveness or who is a mental health professional aiding people’s forgiveness is this: The writer or helper must take the time to deeply understand what forgiveness is and is not in its true sense, in its essence.  This takes time, study, and reading works that show maturity and accuracy.  I now am a bit discouraged because I do not see this happening nearly to the extent that it should be happening.  What do you think?

I agree with you that scholars and practitioners have the “huge obligation” of taking the time to very deeply know what forgiveness is in its fullness, in its essence.  I agree that there should be more time devoted to examining the “works that show maturity and accuracy” without reductionism or the search for continual innovation, which is so rewarded in academia.  If a person comes up with a new twist on forgiveness (or any other variable) this is often seen as an innovation or an advance, when too often it splits the construct, reduces the construct, and therefore distorts the construct.  For example, talking of “emotional forgiveness” as if this is a kind of forgiveness is confusing “kind” and “component,” a very large difference.  Emotions are a component of forgiveness, that includes much more than this.  Emotions by themselves are not a “kind” of forgiveness.  If that were the case, then motivations, cognitions, and actions could be deleted and you still have forgiveness.  Does this sound accurate to you when your goal is to understand the essence, the whole picture of what forgiveness is?

In your most recent answer to my question about scholars misunderstanding the term forgiveness, can you give an example of a failure of some scholars to understand forgiveness in its “full sense” and a failure of some other scholars to understand forgiveness in “a true sense”?

A failure to understand forgiveness in its full sense, for example, is when a scholar equates forgiveness only with a part of what forgiveness is in its essence.  An example of this is equating forgiveness only with a motivation to forgive.  A motivation to forgive is one component of forgiving, but not the entire essence of it, as I explained in an earlier answer.  A failure to understand forgiveness in its true sense, for example, is when a scholar claims that we can forgive situations, such as when a tornado strikes one’s house.  Because you cannot be good to a tornado, it follows logically that you cannot forgive a tornado or any other non-human entity.  Situations are non-human entities.  Therefore, you cannot forgive situations, despite some scholars’ claim to the contrary.

I will never forgive my ex- without his apology.  Forgiveness is conditional, right?  We should withhold forgiving until the other apologizes.  This gives me a sense of respect.

Actually, forgiving unconditionally, without the other first apologizing, is important.  Otherwise, you give the other person too much power over your own healing, over your own inner peace.  Here is an essay from Psychology Today in which I defend the idea that forgiveness does not require an apology from the one who acted unjustly:

Why Forgiving Does Not Require an Apology

Does the brain cause people to forgive?

I have addressed this question in a Psychology Today blog here: Does Your Brain Cause You to Forgive?

The short answer is: I do not think so.  There can be a confusion of cause and effect.  As people willingly practice forgiving, brain structures can alter.  In other words, it is not the brain’s existing structure that causes forgiveness but the continual practice of forgiveness that may lead to an alteration of the brain.