Tagged: “Misconceptions”
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?
From your recent posts here, it seems that there are many misunderstandings about what forgiving is. Why do you think there are so many misunderstandings out there?
I agree that there are many misunderstandings of forgiveness in the general public, in mental health professionals who are trying to help people to heal, and in scholars who publish articles on forgiveness. I think this is the case because most people, including mental health professionals and scholars, have never examined the term forgiveness from a philosophical perspective. This often results in a failure of understanding what Aristotle called “the specific difference” between forgiveness and other related ideas such as “just moving on” or reconciling or even just engaging in a few psychological techniques such as writing a letter that is not sent to the offending person. Forgiveness as a moral virtue takes time and practice. It includes thinking in new ways about the offending person, waiting for softer emotions to emerge, and deciding whether or not to reconcile. So often people miss some or even all of these important points, thus distorting what forgiving actually is.
The eighth of 15 criticisms I see about forgiveness is this: To forgive is to cancel the debt the other owes you and so you never get back what is due.
When you forgive, as stated several times now, you do not cancel justice. Yes, you can cancel any obligation the other person has in helping to heal your wounds, but even here your forgiving, to be more complete, involves kindness and even love (on its highest level) which goes way beyond canceling the other’s obligation to help you to heal.
The eleventh of 15 criticisms that I so characteristically see on-line is this: The self-help advice suggests that forgiving is a quick-fix, accomplished so quickly as to be a superficial and misguided way of healing from trauma.
Research consistently shows that to forgive a person for a very deep injustice that has resulted in the effects of trauma takes patience, struggle, and time. This science shows that to forgive a person for such deep injustices is definitely not a quick fix. The problem here is in the advice of quickness and not something inherent in forgiveness itself.
Can someone forgive a tornado if it destroyed his home?
Forgiveness is toward people who have been unfair. Can a tornado be unfair? No, because a tornado has no intentions to do evil. One can work on acceptance of what happened, but it would be a distortion of forgiveness if you encouraged someone to forgive an inanimate object. A goal of forgiveness, not always possible, is to enter back into a loving or respectful relationship with that person. One cannot ever enter into a loving relationship with a tornado.
